David Taylor: The Under-Secretary knows that a good proportion of domestic fires, and the injuries and deaths that go with them, are associated with discarded smoking materials. What steps have the Government taken to pursue the development and sale of reduced ignition propensity cigarettes of the sort that Canada and some states of the United States of America require? They need to be actively smoked, otherwise bars along the length of the cigarettes mean that they go out. Are not they a safety device and why are we not moving along that path more rapidly?

Simon Burns: Does the Minister agree that one of the most effective ways of increasing the percentage of domestic dwellings fitted with fire alarms in England is through the work that the fire services do in providing people with free advice on the use and installation of fire alarms? In that respect, will he join me in praising Essex fire service on the tremendous work that it does by increasing awareness of safety and installing free fire alarms in domestic dwellings?

Dari Taylor: I am very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's response. Will she outline the review into the private rented sector that Julie Rugg is undertaking and will she also tell the House when we will receive information on how she sees larger houses being utilised to manage overcrowding?

Caroline Flint: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a somewhat patronising attitude towards tenants. I understand that the driver for the change was about ensuring that those renting in the private sector who have traditionally been in receipt of housing benefit can take more responsibility for finding their housing and assume more financial responsibility, too. The change is about developing a more independent approach, rather than a dependent approach. I also understand—I am sure that colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions will be happy to provide him with information on this—that safeguards are in place, particularly for vulnerable tenants, to ensure that rents are paid and, where appropriate, that adequate and suitable support is given either by Jobcentre Plus or local authorities, or by charitable organisations working with particular groups of vulnerable people.

Hazel Blears: Sir Michael Lyons also looked, very properly in my view, at the implications of moving either to full or local income tax. If we went to full income tax, there would be a rise of 7.7p in the pound, and if we went to a local income tax that covered only half of council tax, that would add 4p to the basic rate of income tax. I do not think that families want to pay those kinds of amounts.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend expresses himself with great knowledge, as usual. He is a bit of an expert on these matters. I understand that if we were to have a local income tax, as well as it having to be administered nationally, the cost for business would be absolutely enormous. The latest estimate is that the administrative costs would be £100 million, particularly affecting small businesses in administering that kind of local income tax.

David Evennett: I thank the Minister for his response. Will not the Government's plans for bin taxes simply harm the local environment by causing a surge in fly-tipping and backyard burning, as well as increasing bills for families? Is he aware that, in the Republic of Ireland, which already has bin taxes, one in 10 people burn rubbish in their backyard? Surely the Government should be working with councils to extend recycling opportunities.

Anne Main: May I caution the Minister? In some authorities, including my own—Liberal Democrat-run St. Albans—the literature that accompanied the waste collection was so badly worded that it caused utter confusion and had to be redrafted, rewritten and re-sent. [Hon. Members: "Recycled?"] Unfortunately, we have not had a Tory administration in St. Albans since 1997; otherwise, I am sure that we would have had a better service. Compounding that, we are now going over to a fortnightly putrescible waste collection, which is causing disturbance as well as raising concerns about smells, odours, flies and, indeed, infections. May I ask the Minister to keep a close eye on authorities that are going over to that system and to evaluate the situation after a reasonable time, as I am concerned that residents in my constituency are not being well served by this?

Sally Keeble: I very much appreciate the track record that my hon. Friend has set out. Is he aware, however, that 31 local authorities, including Northampton borough council, will meet the decent homes standards only after 2010, and that another 19 have arm's length management organisations that do not yet have an investment programme and no date for it has been given? What is the Department going to do to put pressure on those local authorities to deliver decent standard houses by 2010? I have to say that their failure to do so means that some of my constituents live in unacceptable standards of housing and some of the most vulnerable families live in harsh poor conditions.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will know that 5,500 householders have been unable to return home, and that about a quarter of them are still living in caravans. To what extent has he implemented the conclusion in the Pitt report that no householder or business owner should of right add any impermeable surface to his property? Will he support the Land Use (Garden Protection) Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), which will be presented to the House in due course?

John Healey: The best approach to deal with the particular problem of increased run-off as a result of paved front gardens is the planning permission route. Having implemented that in October this year, we are looking at whether we should apply similar standards to non-domestic properties such as offices, industry and car parks. My hon. Friend may like to know that we will produce guidance on how householders can pave over their front gardens without using impermeable materials that will require planning permission.

James Gray: The many thousands of houses that were tragically flooded last summer partly because of the concreting over of front gardens will not be helped in any shape, size or form by the prevention of that in the future, because the concrete that is there already will still be there unless the Government intend to make the measure retrospective. What is important is that gardens as a whole should be preserved—not just front gardens, but all gardens. Will the Government therefore ask the planning system to take a look at garden grabbing? We need to keep our gardens in our town areas. If we do that, that is where the water goes, so never mind setting up an army of spies to look into whether people are planning applications for their front gardens.

Hazel Blears: Since May last year, community groups have been assisted on asset transfer projects in 20 areas, the Cabinet Office has allocated £30 million in refurbishment grants, and there is new guidance for local authorities. The White Paper will build on that, and in particular propose a new right for citizens which ensures that councils consider proposals to transfer underused properties or land to community ownership.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has an extremely good record of being imaginative and innovative and of supporting these kinds of projects in her area. We now have 14 community land trust pilots—overseen by Salford university—in both rural and urban areas. In some of the rural areas, we already have people occupying the homes that have been built in this way. This is a very imaginative way of ensuring that affordable housing remains for the long term. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) later today to consider how we can press on further with this agenda.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is also extremely supportive on these issues, and I know he has been imaginative in taking them forward in his own area. I can promise him that there will be a report on the pilots. He will know that there are still some technical issues to be explored, particularly in relation to the urban pilots, which are on a broader scale and therefore require more work to be done. I will make sure that we come forward with our proposals as soon as we can, as I understand that there is a pressing need to get a proper framework around this way of working. Not only community land trusts but community ownership in general can ensure that organisations are sustainable for the long term, with an income stream that means they are less dependent on grants from local authorities. That is why such trusts are such an important part of the Government's business.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and a key part of our strategy is to tackle the ideology perpetrated by extremists. It is absolutely vital that young people but also women have the ability, knowledge and skills to stand up and combat these messages. That is why we have an extensive programme of work with women. There is the National Muslim Women's Advisory Group, and I intend to have a similar group of young people who will be empowered to take on leadership roles and to play a much larger part in their communities. This is the point at which we move from simply small projects that reach a few people, to trying to get the message across not just to the Muslim community but to all our communities that it is the voice of the overriding, law-abiding majority that we must hear, and that we must tackle this ideology, which threatens our communities.

John Healey: Some argue that, but it is also important for all local councils to be properly funded. That requires a significant redistribution of central Government funding, which we make each year, and, thus, a significant proportion of central Government support, which we give each year. Over the past 10 or 11 years, the proportion of funding raised through council tax has remained at about a quarter. The proportion of central Government funding has, of course, risen: local councils have seen rises of more than 39 per cent. above inflation over those 10 years, which directly contrasts with the three years previous to 1997, when there was a 7 per cent. real-terms decrease.

Andrew George: In my constituency, three times as many properties continue to be sold to second-home buyers than to first-time buyers. The Government's rural advocate and their Affordable Rural Housing Commission recommend action, and meetings that I had with the Minister for Housing's predecessor and with the Prime Minister have left the door open for action, so can I assume that the Government will act to rebalance the market? If so, when will they do so?

Hazel Blears: I do not know about people coming back from the dead, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Dispatch Box from Crewe and I know that Tamsin Dunwoody will be an excellent Member of Parliament for that constituency from Friday morning.
	The Government's interests lie in ensuring that we encourage people to recycle. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my care for the environment and ensuring that we have a proper system of incentives and rewards to encourage this country to take its responsibilities for the environment seriously. I thought that the slogan was "Vote blue and go green", but that does not sound very green.

Peter Soulsby: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Councillor Manjula Sood, who last Thursday was unanimously elected as lord mayor of Leicester, the first Asian woman lord mayor of any UK city and in almost 800 years of the mayoralty in Leicester? Following Councillor Sood's example, will my right hon. Friend say what progress has been made to ensure the recruitment of a greater number of women councillors and councillors from ethnic minorities, especially women councillors from ethnic minorities?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in those congratulations. I have met Councillor Sood and I wrote to her on 30 April congratulating her on her appointment. I wrote:
	"I am so proud of your achievements. You are an inspiration to others".
	I agree entirely that we do not have enough councillors from black and minority ethnic communities, especially women; we have only 168 out of 20,000 councillors. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for Women and Equality this week launched a taskforce to see what practical steps we can take to ensure that more people come forward so that our councils are more representative of our communities as a whole. I have no doubt that Councillor Sood will be an excellent lord mayor and I wish her all the best for her year of office.

Caroline Flint: What we are working towards at the moment is how we can engage with the construction industry, mortgage lenders and across Government to ensure that we do whatever we can to deal with the present challenges. Fundamentally, we need a long-term view of how we can ensure that when the upturn comes, and it will, we are on task to build more homes. That is our agenda and that is what we will do. We will continue to engage in a commonsense, practical way that delivers for our communities.

Caroline Flint: I welcome the formation of the all-party group, and the work that my hon. Friend contributed to its establishment. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) who for some weeks now, if not months, has been talking to me about the problem of the lack of empowerment felt by residents in homes run by property and land maintenance companies in respect of charges on communal areas and other matters. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friends, and I apologise for not being able to find the time before now. We will make sure that an appointment is put in the diary.

Hazel Blears: In Crewe, indeed. My proposal was not just for members of the Cabinet to meet outside London, but that they should engage with local people and schoolchildren to take evidence about what is happening in our communities. That is vital, as there is an awful lot that we can learn from the day-to-day experiences at the sharp end. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that the first meeting will be held in Stockton, but I am sure that she will be the first of many to seek such a meeting.

Angela Browning: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose duties upon the Secretary of State and certain organisations involved in health and social care in respect of support for people aged 18 and over with autism; and for connected purposes.
	I declare an unremunerated interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society.
	Autism is a lifelong condition, yet from the lack of support available to adults with autism and the lack of knowledge of their needs, people could be forgiven for believing that that is not the case. I am using the term "autism" now and in the Bill to refer to all adults on the autism spectrum, including those with Asperger's syndrome and high-functioning autism.
	At this point, however, I should like to deviate from what I intended to say to welcome strongly the Government's announcement on 8 May in which they set out a number of actions in relation to adults with autism. Those actions include increasing the Department of Health's capacity to work on the issue by employing a full-time autism specialist and by having one of the Department's officials working specifically on autism, as well as undertaking research into the number of adults with autism. I believe that that is a real step forward and that those measures have the potential to make a real difference to the lives of people living with autism.
	I am introducing the Bill, though, as there is still an imbalance between the increasing recognition of the need to provide support to people with autism and the action taken to meet that need. That discrepancy is highlighted in the recent National Autistic Society's report "I Exist", which details the experiences of adults with autism and the action taken by local authorities and primary care trusts in relation to autism. The report reveals that almost two thirds of adults with autism do not have enough support to meet their needs and that more than nine in 10 parents are worried about their adult son's or daughter's future when they are no longer able to support them.
	I will come back to more of the findings of that report as I discuss the clauses of the Bill, but first I should like to read out a quote from the mother of an adult with autism, which I found particularly moving. She said:
	"My daughter has quite calmly said that when we die, she plans to kill herself because she knows she will be completely alone and unable to care for herself. She weeps on a daily basis because she is so scared of the future. There is nobody to help her manage her daily life, and more importantly, who will love her when we're gone?"
	I believe that the duties in the Bill would be instrumental in transforming the experiences of such adults and enabling them to achieve fulfilled and independent lives.
	I should like to make it clear that, when I refer to independent living, I am using the definition that the Disability Rights Commission used:
	"all disabled people having the same choice, control and freedom as any other citizen—at home, at work and as members of the community. This does not necessarily mean disabled people doing everything for themselves, but it does mean that any practical assistance people need should be based on their own choices and aspirations".
	So what change is required? Well, we still do not know how many adults there are with autism in the UK, and that lack of information has a negative impact on the planning of services. More than three quarters of primary care trusts do not keep a record of how many adults with autism there are in their areas and 86 per cent. of local authorities say that if they had more information about the number of adults with autism in their areas, it would help them with their long-term planning.
	The Government now intend to support a study of the number of adults with autism. That is why I am not calling for that today, but it is important that action for adults does not wait for that study to report and that that research is reinforced by action locally. Therefore, the Bill would also require local authorities and NHS bodies to identify people with autism in their areas and maintain a register of the numbers, which should also include carers.
	In addition, the Bill proposes placing additional duties on local authorities and NHS bodies, because despite recent Government guidance to tackle the inaction by local services it is apparent that not nearly enough is being done to support people.
	There is a lack of clear responsibility for autism at a local level, and that needs to be addressed. First, there is currently no responsibility for autism at a senior level. The director of adult social services guidance published by the Department of Health in 2006 attempted to tackle that, in part by stating:
	"Local authorities shall ensure that the DASS draws up clear lines of responsibility, within his or her staff team for managing the needs of all adult client groups,"
	with autism defined as one of those client groups, yet only 39 per cent. of local authorities say that the requirement has been met. A duty on local authorities and NHS bodies to appoint a senior-level person or team with responsibility for autism is essential if the situation is to improve.
	Secondly—this is closely linked to the previous point—in the majority of local authorities there is uncertainty about which team provides support for people with autism. As autism is a developmental disorder, not a learning disability or a mental health problem, many adults with autism, particularly those with Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autism, are passed over by both teams, receiving no proper help from either. More than 60 per cent. of adults with Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autism say that they have experienced problems when trying to receive support from their local authority or health services. Of those, 52 per cent. were told that they did not fit easily into mental health or learning disability services.
	That is perhaps unsurprising, given that nearly half of local authorities say that they do not have a process in place to manage how people with autism who do not fulfil the learning disability or mental health criteria receive support. As one local authority said,
	"service silos means ASD doesn't fit. ASD falls between service areas".
	The structural disadvantage that adults with autism frequently experience is a major factor in poor outcomes, and many adults' problems go unaddressed. The Bill therefore requires local authorities and NHS bodies to establish and publish a route by which all persons with an autism spectrum disorder may access assessments and any resulting care.
	Thirdly, there is a worrying absence of references to autism in many strategic planning and commissioning documents produced by local bodies. Commissioning strategies should include the requirements of people with autism. To enable that, it is essential that local authorities and partner NHS bodies have regard to the requirements of people with autism in their area when undertaking joint strategic needs assessments. Many areas are still to publish their joint strategic needs assessments, but it is clear from those that have done so that many assessments do not cover adults with autism. That is not acceptable.
	Fourthly, the Bill would require local authorities and NHS bodies to secure sufficient training about autism for staff who are in regular contact with people on the autistic spectrum, and those involved in assessment. It is of great concern that more than 70 per cent. of local authorities do not believe that care managers receive sufficient training about autism either in their initial professional training or as part of their ongoing professional development. That is perhaps unsurprising, given that more than three quarters of local authorities do not have an autism training strategy at all.
	Some 98 per cent. of local authorities and 100 per cent. of primary care trusts say that the Government could provide them with more guidance and assistance to support adults with autism, so there is near-universal demand for more support. From that it can be concluded that there is a recognition that existing work and initiatives have not gone far enough. The Bill therefore calls on the Secretary of State to ensure that there is regional support to assist local authorities and NHS bodies in taking forward good autism practice. The Bill intends to address the inactivity in relation to autism, particularly locally. It is time to recognise that it is unacceptable for adults with autism to continue to be socially excluded. We know what change is required; we now need action from local services to make that change happen.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Angela Browning, John Barrett, Roger Berry, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Geoffrey Cox, Michael Fabricant, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Anne Main and Mr. Andrew Turner.

Iain Duncan Smith: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which are in my name and in the names of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I should explain why, in the amendments, we have gone slightly further than the debate with the Government over whether the word "father" should be in the clause. We propose to retain the wording "a father" and add "and a mother".
	In the Government's consultation, they received an overwhelming amount of correspondence from the public in favour of a reference to fathers and mothers. More importantly perhaps, clause 54(2)(c) refers for the first time in the Bill to gay couples acting as fathers, and I believe that in the interests of balance, there should be a reference to mothers. We propose to amend the Bill accordingly.
	Since 1990 there has been a huge amount of research on the effect of absent fathers, demonstrating an increasing understanding of the importance of the role that fathers play in the home. That is not to suggest that if a family breaks up and the father leaves, that is simply bad for the children: research that we published recently, which was drawn from more than 3,000 evidence sessions, showed that the effect on those broken families is remarkable—75 per cent. of the children are more likely to fail at school, 70 per cent. are more likely to succumb to drug addiction, 50 per cent. are more likely to have serious alcohol problems, and 35 per cent. are more likely to experience some form of unemployment or welfare dependency.
	The research highlights the fact that fathers bring something more profound to the parenting process, which has for too long been taken for granted. In some cases people determined that it should not be discussed. One set of evidence published as recently as 2007 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation states:
	"Maternal 'inputs' are not consistently correlated with indices of their children's development once they enter secondary school, whereas paternal 'inputs'  are so correlated. Indeed, there is an indication that teenagers' sense of self-worth is predicted by the quality of their play with their fathers some 13 years earlier."
	The report goes on to say that that
	"has demonstrated links between parental reports of father's involvement at the age of seven and lower levels of later police contact as reported by the mothers".
	Obviously, that makes the strong and profound point that the effect of fathers on both sexes during the teenage years is important.
	Something of which I had not been aware came from the research that we have conducted in the past two and a half years, and I should like to put it before the Committee. It was simply this: the effect that absent fathers also have on young girls. That issue is often forgotten. We always hear of the effect of a father's absence on young boys in respect of the whole issue of role modelling and giving them a stable beginning. However, in Britain we have some of the highest levels of under-age sexual activity, particularly among young girls, and there is very strong evidence to suggest that the effect of an absent father is to distort that further. That is because young girls more often learn empathetic and non-conditional love—something important and profound—from their fathers. They learn that it is possible to have a relationship that does not necessarily involve sex. We all know about the pressures that a young girl is under from young boys at such a time, and her relationships may have to countenance sex at an early stage. From most of the studies, it is clear that the absence of a base from which to understand how far such relationships need to go has a huge effect on such daughters.
	The studies that we have been considering show consistently that such girls lose out in a way that we have not understood or even talked about enough. We know all about how sons need stable father figures who give them decent modelling, such as going out to work and having a creative relationship with the mother; however, the absence of a father is as significant for a daughter as for a son. The evidence on young daughters is also absolutely critical.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is far from rosy, and I am not trying to paint a picture in which the simple arrival of a father makes a huge difference, regardless of what has happened with him. There are plenty of very bad fathers out there; there are fathers who are absent but arrive at particular periods and cause mayhem. We know about that. In many of the areas that I spend a lot of time visiting at the moment we see much of that. We also know about the problems surrounding those whom are loosely described as stepfathers, but whom we might call "friendly father arrivals". Such men are not related to or involved with the child, and levels of abuse can follow—not sexual abuse necessarily, but violence, possibly against the mother. As the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) knows, violence against women is at very high levels and rising.
	We know all about those problems. I am not trying to paint some incredibly rosy picture. However, my point is that, on the whole, the absence of fathers has a detrimental effect on children; the vast majority of fathers are more likely to be positive influences if they are connected to and held to the family for various other reasons.

Iain Duncan Smith: I do not want to go down that road, but I will say this as a link to the intervention of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris): the issue with regard to cohabiting is the scale of break-up. We know from the reports that have been done—we have seen endless reports and we are just beginning to get through some of them—that 50 per cent. of cohabiting relationships are likely to break up. One in two will break up before the child is five. That is an enormously high figure—the highest level of divorce for married couples with a child is one in 12. There is a particular problem with cohabitation, which brings me neatly to the Bill, because there is no recognition in it of family ties: as long as the people involved are considered to be "stable" or in loving relationships, treatment should be available. That is how the Bill stands, which makes it even more important that we introduce the recognition of the need for a father because we are dealing with the strong likelihood that cohabiting couples want to undergo such treatment, and such a change would act as a strong reminder to them, much as it will do to lone parents.

Iain Duncan Smith: I do not believe that there is such a debate about research. The trends may or may not be ameliorated slightly, but over time I suggest that the level of break-up for cohabiting couples will be higher, even for those receiving IVF, than it will be for married couples. That is the nature of such relationships. I am not going to debate that with the Minister, but it is a fact. I do not think that that will change regardless of IVF. The right hon. Lady says that I am speaking generally, and I am, because I am making a point about why there is a problem, and why the need for fathers is so important.

Iain Duncan Smith: If the hon. Lady wants to intervene on that point, she will be able to so in a moment because I am coming to it.
	To conclude the point about cohabiting parents, I suggest that it is the nature and the break-up of such relationships that put children in such difficulty. Recognising in the Bill that it is important for people to understand the importance of the father in a relationship can only strengthen their thought process as they go through this course of action and will hopefully act as a reference for them in the future. We cannot promise anything, but taking it away will have exactly the opposite effect. It is as though we are saying to couples, especially in the heterosexual world, that fathers are less important than mothers and that, therefore, they do not need to be considered. There is little research that any of us can claim one way or the other about outcomes for gay and lesbian couples. I draw no inference from that other than that we need more research, and I am sure that that will come in time. I—like everybody else, I hope—would want such relationships to prosper and for any child to benefit in such stable, successful relationships. I believe that the amendment would help and not act against that.

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree. The Government's action is unnecessary and they have overreacted—I shall deal with that shortly. Stonewall described the change today as a tidying-up exercise, but my problem is that, when one tidies up, one can also tidy out. We need to be conscious of what may be lost, and balance it against what may be gained.
	Why do the Government need to make the change? Some in the gay and lesbian community will feel uneasy about the original guidance on the father, and they will have made representations. They will probably feel some unease about the amendment. I am sympathetic to that, but the key point is that unease does not mean that there is discrimination. To what extent is there discrimination? Is there simply a sense of unease that does not change any outcomes? The Government's position is that they need to remove the original clause, which referred to the father, because they perceived it as discriminating against gay or lesbian couples.
	I was struck when reading the debates in the other place by the fact that the Government spokesperson made such an absolute case. He is not a lawyer but he made a case that would brook no opposition because, according to him, the original clause clearly contravened the convention on human rights and that was that. However, I do not believe that even the strongest proponent of the Government's view would go as far as that here. Even Lord Lester says that there is a strong case, but his published views state that the matter is confusing and fraught with contradictions. We must consider whether the original provision somehow constituted an abuse of rights.

Emily Thornberry: The right hon. Gentleman has made that assertion in this place and elsewhere and I have therefore caused it to be investigated. I do not know whether he is familiar with the Birmingham women's hospital, where the eligibility criteria for Birmingham-funded treatment and entry on the waiting list for assisted conception include:
	"A stable, heterosexual relationship of two years minimum."
	That is direct discrimination against lesbian couples and single women. If the right hon. Gentleman wants an example, there it is.

Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a good many of us wish that the situation were as described by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury?

Iain Duncan Smith: I enjoy my hon. Friend's interventions as ever.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful for that intervention, but I simply do not agree, and I am not alone in that—there are human rights lawyers out there who do not agree with those recommendations either. I have a brief here from a human rights QC, who says that lawyers do not believe that that is how the Bill will be seen. In reality, the Government have set themselves on siding wholly with the rights of the adult. The truth, however, is that the rights of the child must also be a paramount consideration. That is the point for those who deal in this area. For instance, the UN convention on human rights and the ECHR both make it clear that the rights of a child to have those parents is the paramount consideration and that no element can override that.
	The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but it is worth saying in return that I have some advice on the ECHR recommendations which refers to whether it is necessary to override the rights and freedoms of others and which would prevail. It continues:
	"This works both ways in the circumstances of this Bill. The child once born has Art. 8 rights which should not be interfered with for the protection of the rights and freedoms of"
	anyone, including
	"same sex parents unless...'necessary'".
	The advice continues:
	"'Necessary' here means something that is clearly required...not...anything that is thought to be socially convenient at any particular time."
	The issue is the well-being of the child, not, in this case, the well-being of the adult concerned.

Iain Duncan Smith: If hon. Members will allow me, I shall make a couple of minutes progress, then I promise that I shall give way generously. I understand that many hon. Members want to get involved. I have some other advice relating to other cases in which this matter has been raised before. For example, a 1990 custody judgment involving a minor featured this statement about the balancing of rights:
	"The question was not where"
	the individual child
	"would get the better home. The question was: was it demonstrated that the welfare of the child positively demanded the displacement of the parental right."
	That is the key to what we are saying. My view, and I believe that of eminent lawyers, is that this is a balance of rights, and in the end, in the case of human rights, the courts must place as paramount the rights of the child.

Geraldine Smith: To most people outside the House, the right hon. Gentleman is simply talking common sense—they must wonder why we are even having this debate. Is it any wonder that people think politicians are out of touch with ordinary people when we have such debates? It is nonsense to suggest that we should not take into account the need for a father. We are not insisting that single women or lesbians do not have IVF treatment; the only thing we are saying is that there should be a father figure somewhere, who may be a grandfather or another relative. Many single parents depend on father figures, whether they are grandparents or other relatives. It is just pure common sense, and the fact that we are even debating it is ridiculous.

Iain Duncan Smith: With respect, I am going to finish this. The hon. Lady may not like it, but she is going to get it. I have to say to her that that is utter nonsense. Those who signed up to the amendment and who agree with me are simply saying, "Come on, this is common sense." All we are saying is that we should take into consideration the need of a child for a father, not "If you do not have a father, you will never get treatment." We are suggesting only that that is considered.  [Interruption.] That is nonsense and she knows it; it is what is in the Bill that counts.

Iain Duncan Smith: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that technology is a lovely thing, and while the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) may not have liked it from me, she certainly is not going to like it from him.
	All I want to say by way of conclusion to my hon. and right hon. Friends, and in this context my hon. Friends across the Floor who have signed up to and agree with the amendments is the following. I simply say that this comes down to the Government, to a balance of judgments, to the rights of the child versus the rights of adults, and to the importance of fathers and the demonstrable body of evidence regarding the effect of absent fathers on children and families.
	We must balance all those considerations. Nothing is absolute. I am not for one moment saying to the Government that I am absolutely right; I am saying that there is a strong level of doubt about the Government's position. They need to argue the case in almost absolute terms, because it is they who are setting out to do away with the existing code. It is they who are doing away with it, not me. I am simply standing for the status quo and arguing—as ever, with legislation—that they must make their case and we will listen to it. However, the case has not been made, and I do not believe that it exists.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am concluding my speech, so if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I want to let other hon. Members get in.
	In regard to the way in which the advisory section should work, I believe that clinics should be sensitive to the needs of all parents, as I have stressed from the beginning. If they are sensitive, when the requirement comes up for people to take cognisance in this way, even gay and lesbian couples will think about it. It is a great prompt to allow people to think, "Yes, maybe we'll have to find some way round that. We'll have to do something". As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) has said, people will try because it is important. That is all that we want. We want people to recognise that fathers have a major role to play, and if they are not around, let us find a way of ensuring that their influence can still be felt.
	What is important for hon. Members tonight is that they do not sit here thinking, "I am right". Rather, everyone in the House should examine their conscience and ask themselves on the basis of the balance of this argument whether they are in any doubt at all. If any Member of the House has a shade of a doubt about whether to support the amendments, I ask them to remember that it is the Government who have made the case for stripping the provision out. We have not made that case. They are the radical proponents here, not us. We are arguing for the status quo. Anyone with a scintilla of doubt in their mind should vote for the amendments, and for the status quo.

Alan Haselhurst: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I gently remind hon. Members that we are in Committee and not sitting as a House?

Emily Thornberry: Let me finish the point, and then I will.
	My point is this. Frequently asked questions and the answer are one thing, and an overt piece of discrimination is something else. If there is a lack of clarity in the current law, we have an opportunity to sort it out today. If we were to confirm the need for a father, to add the need for a mother or to move away from the carefully thought out wording proposed by the Government, there would be increased confusion—or, worse, no clear law at all. Many hospitals would have eligibility criteria for IVF treatment as explicit as that published in Birmingham, so we would then have to wrestle with the Human Rights Act.
	Frankly, why, in the 21st century, are we doing this? Why are we putting ourselves in such a position? Why are we saying, "We are not really overtly discriminating against lesbians or single women, but if we are, the Human Rights Act will sort it out, even though the Human Rights Act does not apply at the moment"? Why?  [Interruption.] I always worry when people say that they are applying only common sense, because all too often common sense is a cover for discrimination, narrowness and an inability to face the 21st century.

Geraldine Smith: I think that my hon. Friend displays a very patronising attitude towards lesbian women. I do not think they will be that confused by someone saying that if they go for IVF treatment they will have to take into consideration the welfare of the child and the need for a father. I would have thought that that was pretty easy to understand; my hon. Friend may think that that is difficult, but surely most reasonable people could understand it. Most people, including lesbians and single women, might well think that that would be a good thing. Unless they absolutely hated men, they might well like a positive male role figure in the child's life. It is good to have a father figure in a child's life. Do colleagues think that it is nonsense to have a male figure involved in a child's upbringing? Might it not be a good thing, if possible, or should it not at least be taken into consideration? I think that some colleagues display that they are way out of touch—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is making a very long intervention, which is bordering on a speech. She was also making it in a direction that made it very difficult for me and the  Hansard reporters to hear.

Emily Thornberry: I am very concerned about some of the comments that are being made by Conservative Members about children with single parents. I had only a mother to bring me and my brothers up. I am all right, and my brothers are all right. Of course we relied on other adults who were brought into our lives via our mother and our experience of life—many role models are available to children. Members should not make blanket judgments about children and families, and they should not demonise such a large number of children.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being very generous in giving way. Does she accept that the world that she is describing is not so much a common sense-free world as the real world? In the real world, there are bad fathers and sometimes bad mothers. There is no ideal version of the right combination of parents in every circumstance.

Robert Key: I know that people have asked why on earth we are debating this issue, but I am very glad that we are debating it. I was a member of the Joint Committee that considered the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill, as it then was, last year. We recommended
	"that the proposal to remove the 'need for a father'...should be put to a free vote of both Houses of Parliament. To inform that vote, the balance of view of this Committee is that it would be detrimental to remove entirely the requirement to take into account the 'need for a father'."
	I was one of the Committee members who changed their minds during the submission of evidence. A number of peers, of both sexes, also changed their minds. The reason was very straightforward. I was always concerned about the broader principle of our approach to this proposed legislation. The first point was that both Houses of Parliament should set the legal framework and be the de facto bioethics commission for this country, and then once we have set the legal framework it should be for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to regulate—not the regulatory authority for tissue and embryos, which was going to be the body but which the Government then abandoned, but another body, and in terms laid down by Parliament.
	We also made it clear that the final decision on an individual case of in vitro fertilisation treatment should be taken between the mother, the clinician and the husband or partner—that the decision should be taken at the lowest possible level. Our Committee also made it clear that we would take into account the situation regarding civil partnerships and how that had changed attitudes and how adoption and fostering authorities would not discriminate against same-sex couples—the current law does not prevent single-sex couples from adopting or fostering, or, indeed, from having IVF treatment.
	In the evidence we took, it was made clear to us that single-sex couples could provide a warm background that was stable and loving, and that could be a lot better than that provided by an unhappy heterosexual family where the father abused the mother, or came home late and drunk, or hit the children. There was no question in our minds that a single-sex couple could be very good foster parents or adoptive parents. That was not the issue. What was particularly interesting was the question of why on earth this ever came near the Bill in the first place: why was there a need to take it out?
	We discovered the answer to that, too. We did so on 6 June 2007, when the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was interrogating Mr. Ted Webb, the deputy director of scientific development and bioethics at the Department of Health. The hon. Gentleman asked that erudite official why it had been decided to remove the need for a father. Mr. Webb told the Committee:
	"From a legal point of view the legislation at the moment"—
	the new clause that takes out the need for a father—
	"does not actually seem to achieve anything. So we have looked at it from a legalistic point of view more than anything else. It does not prevent treatment being provided to single women or same-sex couples, and also does not seem to fit too comfortably with the Government's wider civil partnerships policy. So I think that is really our starting point for recommending that the need for a father reference is taken out of the legislation".

Robert Key: That is a very important issue, but as far as I can see, it has nothing to do with this particular issue. The Science and Technology Committee in the previous Parliament, which was led by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), examined that issue specifically. We made recommendations accordingly, and I was pleased that the Government accepted them.
	In conclusion, I have no desire to discriminate against single mothers, many of whom do an amazing job bringing up wonderful children in as close to a family atmosphere as possible—it is never their desire to do so in this way. I know that many same-sex couples also do an astonishing job and are very loving couples when it comes to fostering and adoption. I just hope that we will consider the offhand way in which, for legalistic reasons, the Government felt it necessary to introduce this entire clause into the Bill. In my judgment, it is simply not necessary and it is causing a great deal of distress to a lot of people. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will simply say to the Government, "Please think again. We think this is a bad idea." I hope that such people will vote against this measure.

Geraldine Smith: The provision does not just affect lesbians; it would also affect heterosexual single women who may wish to have a child.

Desmond Turner: In this instance, the need to take account of something strongly implies the requirement to produce a father figure, and that would be interpreted by many—I can think of several hon. Members who would do so—to mean that a father, real or otherwise, would be required.

Desmond Turner: I endorse that entirely and I am glad that the system has worked in her case. However, it is much more realistic to retain the present wording of the Bill about supportive parenting, as that is much more important. We no longer live in a "Janet and John" world where everybody has an ideal father and an ideal mother. Let us be honest and admit that many fathers have been damaging. How many single parents are left without a supportive father for their child because that natural father has deserted them, often with associated domestic violence? I know of far more cases in which that is true than of lesbian couples having IVF.
	If we follow the provisions of the Bill, we stand to guarantee supportive parenting. We are almost assured that that child will have two parents. Not only that, but should anything happen to one of those parents, there will be another clearly identified parent with parental rights to look after the child. I can see nothing wrong with that: it is entirely logical.
	We do not apply such strictures to same-sex adoption. We have legislated for that and we allow lesbian couples to adopt, and be responsible for the upbringing of a child, without a father. Why should it be any different for a child produced by IVF?

Mark Simmonds: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). The one issue on which he was absolutely correct is the disparity in PCT provision of IVF treatment, which causes a lot of angst and concern across the country. Something needs to be done about that. However, he was completely incorrect to say that the terms of the original clause in the 1990 Act, the amendments proposed by me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and those proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) are discriminatory. They are clearly not. Those Labour Members who have tried to defend the Government's position are skating on very thin ice and dancing on the head of a pin, as I hope to demonstrate in my remarks.
	No one disputes that that 1990 Act has worked well. It was thoroughly thought through, and it was a detailed and widely debated provision. It was agreed at the time that the need for a father was an important factor in the welfare of a child. Both the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown seem to be suggesting that we should ignore the welfare of the child, but that should always be a cornerstone of this aspect of the Bill.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made a very knowledgeable, considered and well argued speech. He talked about the significance of the need for a father, and I shall expand on that later. He was also right to say that the amendments under consideration do not contravene human rights legislation, but does the need for a mother have to be made explicit in amendments Nos. 21 and 22? Is not that need already explicit in the fact that it is a would-be mother who presents herself for treatment?
	I hope that it will help the Committee if I explain what my amendments Nos. 12 and 13 set out to do.

Mark Simmonds: That is why my amendments would not remove the phrase "supportive parenting" from the Bill. I do not criticise those words, and that is why I did not put my name to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. My amendments would retain the phrase "supportive parenting", reinstate the need for a father and add a requirement for a "male role model". I shall explain why I have phrased those amendments like that.
	My amendments recognise that supportive parenting needs to be provided, and that various types of family unit exist. It is also important that clinics disseminate information on these matters, and my amendments would also reinstate the need to consider the role of a father or, in the absence of such a person, a male role model. The amendments would thereby emphasise the importance of father, while at the same time reflecting what happens in practice in clinics now.
	John Parsons is the lead consultant at the assisted conception unit at King's college hospital. He said:
	"We like to know there will be men in these children's lives. They don't have to have a father, but they should at least have a male influence in their lives."
	Mr. Parsons is a clinician who provides fertility treatment every day, and who in essence is putting into practice the principle of my amendments.

Mark Simmonds: First, the evidence is that that requirement is sought in clinics already, as I have said already. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence—we have heard none today—that same-sex couples and single mothers are not accessing IVF treatment. They are doing so, and my amendments propose that clinics look for a male role model, as distinct from just a female one.
	Why have I put that proposal in my amendments? Many research papers—they are too numerous to quote, but they include the excellent work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and his think-tank—make clear the unique contribution made by the father. Fathers contribute academically, psychologically and socially, and also build confidence and self-esteem in their offspring. Indeed, the importance of the father is now almost uncontested in social research. It is important that children have the knowledge that engenders respect for and understanding of the opposite sex.
	That understanding has been challenging enough for many of us who have lived with members of the opposite sex for most of our lives, and one can imagine how challenging it must be for people who have not. We in the Committee have to admit there is a problem in this country, where familial breakdown has led to many serious social problems such as crime, truancy, an over-reliance on the state and poor parenting skills. Social research has found that the involvement, or lack of it, of the father, not the mother, is the key determinant of teenage behavioural problems. Unbelievably, 24 per cent. of children in this country are growing up in families without a live-in father.
	These amendments are not anti same-sex couples, nor anti single mothers. Of course, children can and do thrive in loving families in both same-sex and single mother households, often in very difficult circumstances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) rightly said, single mothers and same-sex couples need to be congratulated on doing such a superb job.
	The second important issue—the rationale that was given for amending the 1990 Act—is that society and social attitudes have moved on in the 18 years since that Act was passed. That is generally and generically true, but they have not moved on in this matter. I am very reluctant to quote polls, because they obviously reflect the question that is often asked, but 77 per cent. of people recognise the importance of the need for a father. Interestingly, the figure rises to 84 per cent. among 18 to 24-year-olds.

Dawn Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee why he wants to put into legislation proposals that he then expects no one to take any notice of, to ensure that discrimination does not occur for lesbian couples and single women?

Mark Simmonds: That intervention was very confusing; it is a logical argument for taking out in totality reference to the need for a father under the 1990 Act. In practice, that condition has made absolutely no difference to access to treatment for same-sex couples and single mothers.

Mark Simmonds: That is why I have tabled my amendments, which not only maintain the need for a father but extend that requirement to include male role models. As I have just said, that would mean that the current practice in clinics continues, while ensuring that the proposal on supportive parenting is included. The amendments would thus try to address the current disparity and difference of approach adopted by parenting units.

Mark Simmonds: The need for a father or a male role model ensures that the welfare of the child can be maximised, by enabling access to the benefits of having a male role model or a father figure.  [ Interruption. ]

Mark Simmonds: I should like to make some progress. As Lord Darzi confirmed in the other place, there is no evidence that single-sex couples or single women who present themselves for fertility treatment have been disadvantaged or faced barriers to treatment. Let me put the matter in context: in 2006, there were only 775 IVF treatment cycles, and fewer than 2 per cent. of them were for single women or single-sex couples.
	Indeed, statistics from the King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust show that of the 6,000 patients treated between 1995 and 2004, 500 gave rise to "welfare of the child" considerations, and 28 were refused treatment. Eight of them were refused treatment because of psychiatric problems, four because of virus infections, and two because previous children were wards of court. There were other issues, too, such as drug or alcohol abuse, or the fact that partners were in prison. There was only one case in which a single woman was refused treatment, and that was because of physical problems. There were two cases in which same-sex couples were refused treatment because of concerns about their relationships. None of the refusals was due to the fact that individuals were single or in same-sex relationships. Those statistics will be replicated across the country. They demonstrate that single women and same-sex couples do not face barriers to accessing treatment under the provisions of the 1990 Act.

Tony Wright: Does not what the hon. Gentleman says, and indeed all our exchanges this afternoon, show only one thing—that in practice it will make no difference at all what wording is used?

Dawn Primarolo: The need for a father provision has provoked much debate here and in another place. It is important to remember the people on whom the provision has an impact. It could very well be a practical impediment to obtaining treatment. Contrary to what some Members are saying—that it has never prevented people from receiving treatment—we have heard of same sex couples who have been refused treatment on the grounds of their sexuality. If the Committee were to reaffirm that today, we could realistically expect that position to continue and, most likely, worsen if it became the current endorsed view of Parliament. It is a question not just of access, but of equitable access.
	When providing treatment under the 1990 Act, a clinician is required to take into account the welfare of the child, including the child's need for a father. The requirement to consider a child's need for a father is removed by the Bill and replaced by a requirement for a clinician to take into account the welfare of the child, including the child's need for supportive parenting. That goes to the heart of the issue with which the Committee is struggling in this debate. How do we define "supportive parenting"? The Conservatives argue that we should include wording, which we know will have no meaning or practical effect, in legislation that is only about IVF so that we can send a wider message to the whole population about family structures. The Bill is not the right place to do that, and it is not acceptable that the House should do it.

Gerald Howarth: What research has been carried out by the Minister's Department or anyone else into the likely effect on children of being brought into the world in what some of us would regard as an unnatural relationship? In the "Dog and Partridge" in Yateley or "The Thatched Cottage" in Cove, a natural relationship is considered to comprise a mother and father. What evidence does the Minister have that children brought up in the unnatural environment in question will prosper or suffer as a consequence?

Dawn Primarolo: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the quality of parenting being crucial. The removal of the requirement to take into account the child's need for a father is not about doing away with fathers or doing anything that does not recognise the important role that fathers can and do play in the upbringing of children. We are ensuring that the law reflects current practice and family set-ups, and current legislation on human rights and discrimination. The wording in it should give meaning to those who have to make decisions on whether or not the child, as a result of IVF, is going to have quality parenting and support.

Iris Robinson: I note that the Minister places great importance on the quality of parenting. Can she envisage, down the road, a child going to primary school and being collected by two females or two males, and the bullying and abuse to which those children will be exposed; or going into their parents' bedroom, as is natural for a child to do, and finding two women or two men making love?

Dawn Primarolo: I believe that the debate would be improved if all hon. Members were direct and open about their views on the subject. The hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) should be given for credit for being one of the few who is brutally honest about her views and expresses them in the Chamber. I hope that other hon. Members will do that instead of trying to conceal their arguments.

Dawn Primarolo: Let me make a little progress, and then of course I will take more interventions. However, I am conscious of time.
	The amendments would have a wide-ranging, discriminating effect on access to treatment for single women and same-sex couples. Instead of being in the child's interests, they would drive single women and same-sex couples away from the safety of the regulated services. That is a retrograde step, which we should not risk—every hon. Member who has spoken has said that ensuring the safety and nurture of the child is paramount. The legislation should be fair to all people who seek treatment, whether they are in same sex couples, single women or in heterosexual couples. If the provision specifying the need for a father or the equivalent was retained, the legislation would place additional burdens on single women and same-sex female couples. That is the point that we need to address, albeit in the context of there being no evidence to suggest that such women make bad parents and should therefore be required to take additional steps.

Dawn Primarolo: No, I would like to make some progress.
	The Bill requires a clinician to take into account the welfare of the child, including that child's need for supportive parenting. That is based on the fact that, as I have repeatedly said, the quality of parenting makes the most difference, not the gender of the parents per se. That is why the Bill requires the consideration of the child's need for supportive parenting, not the gender of the parents. The Bill strikes the correct balance between protecting the interests of the child to be born by requiring that their welfare is considered and the right to supportive parenting.

Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not.
	Reference has been made to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Bill. The Committee recommended that
	"'(including the need of that child for a father)' should be retained but in an amended form in a way that makes clear it is capable of being interpreted as the 'need for a second parent' in line with the parenthood provisions currently in Part 3 of the draft Bill. In making this recommendation, we do not seek to discriminate against single women seeking treatment".
	The Joint Committee recommended an amended version, but its deliberations and recommendations also showed the difficulty of settling on different definitions. Therefore, the suggestions in the Bill as amended provide for that quality parenting. We intend to strike the correct balance between protecting the child and providing those supportive arrangements.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who tabled amendments Nos. 12 and 13, has made thoughtful contributions throughout this debate, but he has fallen into his own trap. He seeks to replace consideration of the need for a father by proposing that clinicians should take into account the child's need for supportive parenting—that is what the Bill says now—and a father or male role model. However, he fails to tell us how. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 do not say that all families should have a father; in fact, if anything, they suggest that any male role model could easily replace a father. Surely that is not the intention of the Committee.
	The hon. Gentleman's amendments more or less say that any man will do, which does not fit with the considerations of quality parenting. Will women who are not being treated with a man have to bring one along for the sake of it? Is that what is being suggested? Evidence was provided to the Select Committee on Science and Technology of women having to bring along a letter signed by a man—any man. Is that what we want? The hon. Gentleman advanced the main point in his argument. This issue is about reflecting the concept of quality of parenting, recognising the diversity of families and judging clearly whether individuals can provide the necessary parenting. That has to be right.
	Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which were tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and are supported by others, would require clinicians to take into account the need of any resulting child for a father and a mother. A general argument against both of the amendments is that they would be discriminatory because, as with the provision on the need for a father, they would create an additional hurdle for female couples and single women who seek treatment. Given the position of this House and the Government on civil partnerships and on adoption by same-sex couples, in my view as a Minister I would way it was wholly inappropriate to retain that additional, discriminatory burden.
	Those who oppose the removal of the need for a father provision talk about it not making any difference anyway. They want a provision in the Bill to send a signal about family structures, but then say that no one should take any notice of it. That cannot be right. Some hon. Members have commented that the current provision does not prevent single women and same-sex couples from accessing treatment and say that it therefore does no harm. That assertion has been challenged repeatedly in today's debate, and I challenge it. I say to the Committee that there is an impact and that we should not allow that discrimination to continue.

Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not.
	Including a reference to the need for a father or for a male role model would send the message from Parliament that we want to return to what was the position when the 1990 Act was introduced, when additional tests were imposed on certain groups of people. Such a provision would not be so harmless or meaningless if it were reintroduced. Those Opposition Members who said that they hoped these matters would not affect their family or friends would need to think again.

Evan Harris: May I say to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that I am certainly aware of the issue that he has raised? There are people behind me on the Liberal Democrat Benches who want to speak, and there is a dilemma on whether to take interventions, which I hope I shall get through.
	The Liberal Democrats have a party policy against unjustified discrimination, such as the inclusion of a provision in the Bill for the need for a father. I hope to show that the proposal is discriminatory and unjustified. This is a free vote issue for the Liberal Democrats as well, however. Everyone has a personal view on the matter, and I am sure that there will be many splits within parties. I am reminded that, when Woody Allen was asked for his personal view on lesbian parents, he said that he did not understand how children survived with even one mother, let alone two. Unusually, I think that he was wrong, because the evidence is clear that children in such families do very well. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) smiling at that.
	I agree with the Minister that the removal of the need for a father provision from the Bill had nothing to do with attacking fathers or fatherhood, which is a ridiculous allegation, or with not wanting to tackle the problem of broken homes. I certainly recognise that problem and the consequences that it has for children, but the legislation is not about broken homes—in fact, it is about precisely the opposite. It is about a couple or an individual seeking to create a family and a home, and taking a serious decision to undergo treatment, which is not a decision to be undergone lightly. Many children are brought into the world in an unplanned moment, but the provision deals with people who are making a specific decision to create a family. It is astonishing that it should be seen as some kind of an attack on families.
	The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) very effectively pointed out that the need for a father provision has not brought a single extra father into a family, or retained a man in a family— [ Interruption. ] I thought that my mentioning her might make her stay in the Chamber; obviously not. Perhaps she has another Division to attend.
	I just do not understand why anyone believes that young men who act irresponsibly and abandon their partners and families are suddenly going to read the statute on IVF treatment—these men are usually fertile—and decide to mend their ways. I have to say that I cannot see that happening.

Evan Harris: I will come on to the welfare of the child in a few moments, which is probably the easiest way to deal with the hon. Lady's intervention.
	We must remember the origin of the provision. In 1990, when this provision was put into the Bill, one of our Houses had voted by a majority of just one not to ban unmarried couples from accessing regulated IVF therapy. The sort of thinking going on at that time by some hon. Members here and, indeed, in the other place, was entirely different from that of today. It would be unthinkable for us to pass legislation to prevent unmarried couples from accessing IVF.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) should, I think, concede that his amendment has no advantages over that proposed by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, and it has many disadvantages. One disadvantage was pointed out in a penetrating intervention by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), who argued that if the provision had any effect, it would be a bad one, and that if it did not have an effect, it would be pointless.
	A doctor who would like to see male role models has been cited—this issue will crop up again in the debate on the next group of amendments. If medical opinion is to be cited, however, it is sensible to look at consensus medical opinion rather than picking out one particular doctor—I can pick out one doctor very easily, and that person might have two opinions. We should look at what the British Medical Association thinks. It represents doctors, so—as far as these things go—it is a relatively democratic policy-making body. Another body is the British Fertility Society, which represents all the doctors working in that area. It wants shot of the need for a father provision, because it would tempt doctors to discriminate, which they do not want to do. It thinks that such a provision would be anachronistic, and it would be appalled if the House allowed colleagues to discriminate.

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has said that those organisations want shot of the advisory provisions, but have not the Government stumbled into an even worse case, as their proposals now ask doctors to interpret in a way that they did not have to under the father's clause? Now they have to interpret what the definition of supporting parenting really means for them.

Evan Harris: Doctors will have to do that, which is why the HFEA produces a code of practice. It is easy to set out the code in a non-discriminatory, light-touch way. I believe that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green is sincere in proposing his amendment. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness either, but it struck me that there are political aspects behind the amendment. I do not think that his heart is really into the idea of a male role model or asking a gynaecologist, of all people, to decide who a male role model should be.
	We need to recognise that there is a problem with any sort of test. Fertile individuals are not required to pass a parenting test by the state before becoming pregnant, so why should the infertile? Many people, including the BMA, would argue that even the Government's wording goes too far in creating a hurdle for the infertile to cross, which the fertile do not have to. Many or almost all of the unsatisfactory families, if I may put it that way, come from the fertile part of the population, not from infertile people seeking infertility treatment.

Evan Harris: I am afraid that I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I do not know which part of the Bill he is referring to. I therefore do not want to be drawn into a discussion, but hopefully the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to pursue the matter further.
	There are really only two questions to be asked. The first is whether the discrimination—or the measure—is justified. The research is clear and is summarised by the British Medical Association, which says that there is no evidence that children do badly in families of that kind. According to the BMA,
	"Social research on children born to these families has given similar findings to those children born to solo mothers. Their emotional and psychological development is comparable to children born of donor insemination to two heterosexual parents. In fact, the second female parent often has greater parent-child interaction than do the fathers in the heterosexual couples."
	The reference for that quotation is one of those cited by the Minister—I know that the same briefing has been sent to all Members. Murray and Golombok made the results of their research very clear. They also looked into the question of solo mothers, and recognised the difference between different types of mothers on their own. Widows are different from young women who have been abandoned by the fathers of their children and who are living in poverty. Solo parents are often well-resourced, given that they often have to obtain private treatment. They often have established careers, and do not have partners. They are entirely different from families of the kind that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has examined in great detail during his trawls around the country.

Evan Harris: There is a philosophical discussion to be had about what is the nature of illness and of treatment. I see that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group of infertility, is present. I know that she has had long arguments with primary care trusts about whether they should provide such treatment. It is not easy to decide that matter now, but it should be noted that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which considers those issues and considers priorities relating to fertility and non-fertility, recognises that infertility is a condition that requires treatment. I think it reasonable to say that donor insemination for lesbian couples should be allowed, particularly because it is cheaper than in vitro fertilisation. In fact, I think that the situation would be legally questionable if it were not. I hope that I have addressed the hon. Gentleman's point, even if I have not satisfied him.
	I want briefly to deal with the evidence given to the Joint Committee by Professor Golombok. I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), but I do not think that one of the many quotations that he read out was exactly the right quotation. In the evidence session of 27 June, Professor Golombok said
	"these greater difficulties for children in one-parent homes are very much associated with the circumstances of being in a one-parent family rather than just whether or not there is a father present. For example, a drop in income, lack of social support for the family, a disrupted relationship with the father with whom they had often spent many years and separation from that father, and moving into stepfamilies. There are all kinds of factors involved so although children in one-parent families overall do seem to be disadvantaged, it is very important to look at why."
	If a child has a father and that father goes, it is a different scenario from being brought up without a father in the direct household. I think Professor Golombok makes that clear, and the same applies to lesbian couples.
	The second question concerns discrimination. I was surprised by what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said about the Human Rights Act, because I think that it showed a failure to understand what the Act is about. It does not just provide a remedy. It is not just about saying "You will suffer. Okay, suffer, and then in a few years' time when you have gone through the courts—if you have the resources and the wherewithal—you will have a remedy." The Human Rights Act, which he prayed in aid, along with human rights law—it was unusual for him to do so, but he did so when it suited him—is about ensuring that there is a framework for legislation and the behaviour of the state that does not intrude into private matters in breach of individual liberties.
	I should have thought that Conservative Members would recognise the importance of restraining the state and its unreasonable intervention in private matters. That is why Ted Webb was right to say that there was a legal obligation for the Government—I urged this on the Government—to ensure that their laws are as compliant as possible. In the absence of justification for intervention, the law is simply not compliant.
	Let me now give three examples of discrimination, because that has been requested.

David Burrowes: Would the hon. Gentleman's concerns about discrimination not be satisfied by clause 53, "Interpretation of references to father etc.", which refers to the father and the woman who is the other parent? In cases in which a woman is
	"in civil partnership at time of treatment"
	or treatment is
	"provided to woman who agrees that second woman to be present",
	references to the father of the child who is a parent
	"by virtue of that section"
	could also be read as a reference to the woman, who would be classified as the "other parent". In terms of the legal definition, there would not be the discrimination that concerns the hon. Gentleman. That is the point that the Joint Committee made in its recommendations.

Evan Harris: I am keen to finish my speech, because others wish to speak.
	I have spoken to clinicians about what the Bill will mean, and I want to reinforce a point made by the Minister. Fortunately, the code of practice currently enables the need for a father provision to be dealt with in a relatively moderate way, but if we voted for a requirement for clinics to observe a need for a father provision, they would have to apply the test to every single group of people in order not to discriminate. John Parsons at King's College hospital has said that in eight years he and his colleagues have conducted 8,000 treatment cycles with 6,000 patients. Going through a detailed role model test with 6,000 patients would be a huge burden.
	I ask those Members who support either of the amendments in question why they want to introduce a measure that could be unfair, and at best would be ineffective and bureaucratic. That is not the right thing to do. The Committee should support the Bill as it stands.

Geraldine Smith: It might surprise my hon. Friend to know that I do talk to many lesbians, and quite a few of them have a great deal of common sense and would not find any problem with this. So it depends who we talk to; maybe lesbians in Lancashire are a bit more down to earth than lesbians in London.
	I spoke on this subject on Second Reading, so I do not want to speak on it now for too long, but let me make the following appeal to all Members: this is about common sense and what is in the best interests of the child, and it is also about saying that fathers have a role to play. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) talked about instructing women on bringing children into the world, but may I finally say that women need a man if they are to bring a child into the world? That is a fact of life at the moment; science has not changed that yet, so there is nothing we can do about it. Therefore, fathers are pretty important.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady said at the outset of her remarks that she accepted readily that there were plenty of good and loving lesbian parents. However, she then went on constantly to reiterate the alleged need for the father. For the avoidance of doubt and in pursuance of the intervention of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is she therefore saying that they are good parents only if a third person is introduced as well? If she is saying that, that is profoundly insulting, as well as having the disadvantage of being wrong.

Geraldine Smith: No, I am saying that it is common sense just to take into consideration the need for a father, and if a child has not got a father to realise that it might be a good thing if there were a father figure—a male figure—in their life, because that is important. Men and women are different; that is just a fact of life. They bring different things to parenthood. Sometimes when there are two same-sex parents, it is a good idea also to have someone who can act as a male role model. That is not discriminating against anyone. That is just enhancing the upbringing of the child—that is just helping. At the end of the day, this is not about discrimination; it is about the child.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) speaks with a degree of refreshing candour and common sense, and she underlines the fact that this is not, never has been and never should be a party political issue. I am as far apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), whom in other ways I admire very much, on this issue as I could possibly be from anyone.
	I have listened to this afternoon's debate with profound depression. When I entered this House in 1970, if somebody had told me that nearly 40 years thence, the House would debate the need for a father, I would have thought that that person had taken leave of his senses. What we are talking about is the natural order of things, and I make no apology for standing up for what I believe to be the natural order of things.  [ Interruption. ] It may well be that people can barrack, but I happen to be the first chairman of the all-party committee for widows and single-parent families in this House. We came together and founded that group in 1974 because we believed in helping single-parent families as much as we possibly could, and a very good committee it was, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) became a member of it after he joined the House.
	Another Committee that I was much involved with as long ago as 1970—with the hon. Lord Janner, then Greville Janner, the former Member for Leicester, North-West—had at its heart the preservation and advancement of proper human rights. That was the all-party parliamentary committee for Soviet Jews—for the release of Soviet Jewry—and we stood for what we considered to be those human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that have now been so distorted, so altered, so extended as to cover a whole range of things that really are not human rights at all. At the root of the Bill that we are discussing this afternoon is the Government's realisation that if they did not insert certain words into it, they would be going against the Human Rights Act that we passed some 10 years ago, and which the House really ought to look at again. It is one thing to defend and advance the proper human rights that, for instance, the people of Burma, for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham stands up with great vigour, are completely deprived of. It is another thing entirely to extend and distort that concept of human rights, so that some people in this place are afraid to say—many outside this place are afraid to say—that it is a natural thing for a family to consist of a man and a woman who have children, and who give those children a natural and a proper home.
	When I listened this afternoon to some of the surreal exchanges that took place, I could not help but remember the immortal words of Mr. Bumble, who said:
	"If the law supposes that...the law is a ass".
	We in this Committee this afternoon are responsible for the law and for trying, I hope, to bring a little balance into the law.
	I listened with considerable admiration to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) when he moved his amendment. He did it with passion and clarity and with a degree of real modesty, but I have to say that I do not think that he went far enough. Although I have many friends who are lesbian or gay, I nevertheless do not believe that a lesbian pair of women or a gay pair of men can provide the same degree of balance, harmony and domestic comfort as parents of the opposite sex can. That is not to say that there are not many parents—men and women, married and unmarried—who are very bad and very cruel to children.
	We are talking about families—the Government have even elevated the word "families" into the title of one of the Departments of State. If we are intent on promoting the concept of the family, why do we run away from the importance of the role of the father?

Patrick Cormack: No, because I am conscious of the fact that I, too, wanted to get in, and that others want to follow me, so I will try to bring my remarks to a close quite quickly.
	I am happy to hold to the view that no one has the right to a child. I happen to believe that a child is God-given, but—

Dari Taylor: This is obviously a passionate debate and people have serious concerns about the outcome of the vote tonight. I was delighted when the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that there are only a few studies that are up to date. That was a very important statement for all of us, because it told us that what we are attempting to assess is new and difficult, and that there are serious complications. He could have continued by saying that there are few new and up-to-date studies for us to use in making an assessment, and that many of the outcomes in terms of gay and homosexual family structures have been defined according to the author's preference in the research, which has clearly defined the questions being asked. We know that we are in a very difficult area when we are examining research and hoping that it will give us objective judgments upon which we make a judgment as to whether we need to provide for the need for a father or for a stable home.
	Much that has been said is important. The quality of parents is much more relevant than their gender to how they determine and deliver the emotional, social and educational achievements of their children. It is also important for us to accept that all the research that has been published—like many other hon. Members, I have looked at a mountain of it—references not homosexuals or heterosexuals who have benefited from IVF, but parents who have adopted or have fostered. We all face the serious problem of trying to unscramble the research to make a fair, representative and objective analysis.

Dari Taylor: It might not surprise my right hon. Friend to learn that I do not agree with him. That which is appropriate for children who are adopted or fostered is equally appropriate for any who are produced by IVF; I see no difference at all, because parenting is parenting.
	I wish to put on record some of my concerns about this debate. The debate is not just about whether every child needs a father or a stable home; it is about the IVF treatment available to couples or women. First and foremost, people have said that a serious disparity is involved. The absolute statement made is that the national health service produces very few National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence agreements; the great majority of women and couples have to access private clinics, and in so doing they have to stump up between £5,000 and £10,000.
	Let us consider how women and couples access this treatment. They are attempting to do that which comes naturally for so many people: conceive a child. They put not only their investment, but so much of themselves on the line. I find it inconceivable——to use an unintentional pun—that they would not love, cherish, protect the child and provide it with a stable home.
	The other statement with which the House should attempt to come to terms is the one that the hundreds and thousands of women who request this treatment have to face from medics on a regular basis: "The treatment has failed." It does not just fail once; it fails month after month. Invariably, women do not access the treatment until they are over 30—often they are over 35—and there are a variety of other reasons why they are excluded from treatment. Such women have five years when their fecundity would support their conceiving naturally or with the help of IVF, so in agonising over whether a statement about a father should be placed in the Bill, we should get the rounded picture, because there is a rounded picture to be obtained.
	We are talking about a very emotional consultation. I am explaining it, although I think most people in the Chamber know about it, because the amendment seeks to place on the medic one further qualification, and another responsibility. He or she would have to ask the person seeking IVF treatment, "Have you got a male? Is there a father figure who will be able to provide the stability that we think is appropriate?" A medic would have to ask that, on top of all the other things that they say to incredibly emotional women who are strung up about one thing only: their desire to have a baby. Does the amendment anticipate the woman taking along with her any male to fulfil that role, so that she has a partner? Will this be policed? Will the medics be asked to prove that they have checked that this qualification is in place? This afternoon, we are hearing a determination, or an attempt to say, that father figures are so important that medics must be made part of the judgment as to whether a woman has a stable relationship or not.

Dari Taylor: That is the whole point. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because how would we take account of these things? There would have to be a process by which people make a judgment. I am trying to say to the House that medics have a seriously difficult situation to handle, that we would be adding one more part to that and that that will be very problematic for them.
	I chair the all-party group on infertility. I see women with serious illnesses and medical problems on a regular basis—and their partners—so I have that one-to-one relationship with them. They are extraordinarily uptight people; they feel that there is something wrong with them, they do not want to expose it to others and they face enough problems without our adding this. They want, and will produce, a stable family. The amendment is discriminatory, but worse than that, it just does not make sense, and I shall support the Bill's remaining intact tonight.

Tim Loughton: May I make a few comments to endorse the passion that we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and the comments of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who spoke with enormous common sense? I do not want to vilify, or discriminate against, anybody, but I am concerned about how this debate has gone, and about the undermining of the role of fathers, the message that that sends out about fatherhood and the resulting effect on our children's welfare.
	The clause sits rather uncomfortably in the Bill, which is why I support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). This part of the Bill, unlike the rest of it, is not about the power of scientists; it is about the power of political correctness and it is about a misconceived notion of equality and fairness, which has been behind many of the objections that we have heard from those on the Labour Benches. There are echoes of the Bill on same-sex adoption from many years ago. I think that we have moved on a long way since then, but I should point out an essential difference. That Bill dealt with children in care who were born of, and may have spent time with, two parents but then needed to be given the opportunity for a stable upbringing. We are dealing with children who will, by design, never have a father. We are talking about artificially creating life that will become a child who will, under these terms, know no father and have no father's influence in his or her upbringing, and whose only connection with a father will have been a momentary collision of gametes in a test tube at the point of conception. That is what will happen if the Government get their way.
	I support this amendment not primarily from any religious or moral considerations, less still any intention to undermine the credibility and dedication of single mothers who have been left to bring up children on their own for whatever reason, or even the suitability of same-sex couples to bring up children. My primary concern is for the welfare of the child, as we are all bound to take into account under clause 1 of the Children Act 1989 and in practice because it is the right priority to have.
	I am annoyed, more than anything else, by the constant talk of the rights of adults to have a child—not the rights of a child—as if they are the latest must-have accessory on a par with the right to water or warmth. The overwhelming right here must be the right of a child to enjoy and benefit from the society and nurture of his or her parents and family. Not to acknowledge that is to diminish the role of both parents.
	The figures speak for themselves and many have been related to the Committee already, but the influence of a father is indisputable in the mental health of a child; in the educational development of a child; in the susceptibility of a child to fall foul of the law; in the likelihood of a child living in poverty; in the likelihood of a child being involved in teenage pregnancy; and so on. Those figures are incontrovertible. Statistically, depriving children born by IVF of the need to take account of a father's role when considering the creation of that child is to condemn that child to a much greater likelihood of underachievement and unhappiness.
	The amendment does not specify that the father has to be there, but regard must be given to the benefits that a father or the alternative father figures that have been mentioned can bring to bear for the good of the child. That is why opinion polls show that 80 per cent. of people are opposed to the changes in the Bill. I have not had a single letter urging me to vote any way other than against the existing provisions in the Bill and in favour of the amendments.
	Fathers bring something distinctive to the parenting process and we should never forget that. They have been referred to as the forgotten contributor to child development. But the framing of the Bill sends out another damaging message that threatens to undermine fatherhood and the role of fathers. Many fathers feel sidelined after the failure of the Government to accept amendments on the presumption of shared parenting in the Children and Adoption Act 2006. I am also concerned by the many references in this debate to absent fathers who have done the dirty and run away. There are many absent fathers who are denied access to their children because they are the non-resident parent. They would like to be the resident parent or to have access to their children, but have been denied that by the courts. Let us not vilify all fathers who happen not to be resident parents.

Tim Loughton: That goes without saying, but there are many fathers who lose contact with their children unintentionally after the break-up of a marriage. They are not all absent from the home because they have done a flit and forsaken their responsibilities. I want to introduce some balance into the debate, because many fathers feel aggrieved and undermined. Legislation that says that fathers are no longer necessary to the nucleus of a family reinforces that dangerous feeling that many fathers already experience.
	Fathers Need Families has said about the Bill:
	"We believe this proposal sends out an extremely worrying message that makes fathers redundant in the upbringing of children. In an environment where significant societal problems are caused by the lack of a father in a child's life, the Government should be making every attempt to consolidate a father's position, rather than weaken it."
	This legislation would weaken the father's position—

Chris Bryant: There is a strange irony in this debate. Either the original clause in the 1990 Act has had some effect, in which case the logic is that the status quo should preclude lesbians or single women from receiving IVF treatment, or the clause has had no effect and the amendment is just a declaratory gesture that, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has just said, its supporters wish to continue. However, that declaratory statement will not have the slightest effect on a young gentleman on a Friday night, when he has had a few pints. He will not say, "Oh, I remember. That Bill that Parliament passed last week said that there has to be a father, so I'm not going to have any unprotected sex tonight." Nor will it ensure that a single father participates in the raising of his child.
	Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee passionately want to ensure that the interests of the child are protected, but the amendment would do nothing to protect the rights of children. However, it would send the message out to lesbians and single women that they should not apply for IVF.
	It may be that many lesbians have been allowed to have IVF over the past few years, and we have had evidence presented that that has been the case, but in some areas IVF clinics have told them that they do not qualify simply because of their sexuality and because a father would not be involved. I do not think that we should now restate the 1990 Act, thereby making the HFEA tell all clinics that they should start discriminating against people on grounds of their sexuality.
	Both the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to what they believed to be "normality", and the views in the "Dog and Duck" in Yateley or wherever it was and in Staffordshire. They also referred to the natural order and what is natural. The truth is that IVF is not, in the strictest sense, natural. It is assisted conception, and it is one of the great joys that doctors have been able to bring to many families around the country. I do not believe that lesbian couples or single women who have gone through the difficult process of deciding that they passionately want a child to bring up in a loving and caring environment are the problem that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) mentioned.
	When we start to impose our understanding of what is normal or natural on others, we are treading a very dangerous path. I for one was taught as a child
	"Judge not that ye be not judged."

Iain Duncan Smith: I rise to sum up the issues before us. I will not follow on from the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), but I will pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who said that we could not make our minds up about whether the current system has worked or not. That is a legitimate question. We can argue that the status quo has worked, to a degree. Of course, the Bill will make it easier for couples of all varieties to get IVF treatment, but in the more limited context of the 1990 Act, it can be argued that the advisory section on fathers had an effect. It has been part of the tapestry that has allowed people to understand the need to take a balanced judgment about the importance of a father.
	I find it intriguing that people say, "If it is not any good, why not get rid of it?" In truth, the point tonight is that the Government's position is far more complicated than that which was in existence until they introduced the Bill. We will be asking clinicians to make a judgment, after they have gone through a long list of criteria, about which group of parents is supportive or not supportive. That is far more complicated and judgmental than current practice and will lead, I anticipate, to a large number of problems. We are asking clinicians to do something that they do not really want to do—that is, to judge the way in which people interrelate. The idea of taking cognisance of the role of a father is simple. That requirement asks clinicians to discuss the issue, and as long as those who are seeking the treatment have taken it into consideration, that is fine. That is why there has not been a single case of anyone having the treatment taken from them.
	I compliment my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Robert Key) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) on their excellent contributions. I think that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) was on the wrong track. As gently as I can, I tell her that if an hon. Member uses a piece of evidence in Committee, they have to get it absolutely right.
	In conclusion, I want to press amendment No. 21 to a vote. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that the matter is about fairness, not fatherhood—but if the clause does not say that fatherhood is important, there will be no fairness in the Bill. I say to all those who are unsure or in doubt that those of us who have tabled the amendment do not have to justify our position. The Government, who have made the radical move to change the provision, have to justify their decision. They have failed to do so. They will tear up a reasonable guidance and substitute a mess. I therefore want to press amendment No. 21 to a Division.

Edward Leigh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Roger Gale): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 2)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "fourteenth week".'.
	New clause 3— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 3)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "sixteenth week".'.
	New clause 4— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No.4)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "eighteenth week".'.
	New clause 5— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No.5)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "twentieth week".'.
	New clause 6— Medical termination of pregnancy: Amendment of the Abortion Act 1967—
	'(1) Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 (c.87) (medical termination of pregnancy) is amended as follows—
	(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (d),
	(b) after subsection (2), insert—
	"(2A) No treatment for the termination of pregnancy shall be carried out under subsection (1) of this section on the grounds of the disability, gender, race or (should it become identifiable before birth) sexual orientation of the child.".
	(2) In section 5 of that Act (supplementary provisions) omit subsection (2)(a).'.
	New clause 7— Amendment of the law relating to abortion: (No. 6)—
	'After section 2 of the Abortion Act 1967 (c.87) insert—
	"2A Informed Consent
	(1) Subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section shall not apply in the case of a medical emergency under section 1(4) of this Act.
	(2) At an appointment with a registered medical practitioner, on receipt of an initial request for a termination of pregnancy from a pregnant woman, or for initial advice regarding the potential termination of a pregnancy, a registered medical practitioner shall, as soon as reasonably practical, and in any event at least five calendar days prior to a termination of pregnancy taking place (where such a termination of pregnancy is applicable), fulfil the following informed consent requirements—
	(a) offer the pregnant woman counselling from a suitably qualified health professional; and
	(b) provide the pregnant woman with the following information:—
	(i) the embryonic and foetal development at two weekly intervals;
	(ii) the physical, psychological and psychiatric risks associated with the termination of pregnancy, including a description of the methods of termination at different stages of pregnancy and any risks associated with such methods; and
	(iii) the contact details of adoption services and other sources of help and advice, (including information on any disability or abnormality that the pregnant woman's embryo or foetus is at risk of suffering from if born).
	(3) A registered medical practitioner must provide the pregnant woman with a written form, of which he must retain a copy, as soon as is reasonably practicable, certifying the date upon which paragraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) of this section were complied with, and in the case of a termination of the pregnancy, the form must be completed prior to any such termination.
	(4) Any persons who wilfully contravenes or fails to comply with the requirements of informed consent under subsections (2) or (3) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
	(5) The Secretary of State shall by statutory instrument make regulations to provide for informed consent as specified in subsections (1) to (4) of this section and shall make provisions concerning the procedure, the requirement for date certification by a practitioner or practitioners, the information requirements and any other ancillary matters as are necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the informed consent requirements.
	(6) Any statutory instrument made by virtue of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament."'.
	New clause 8— Foetal physical or mental abnormalities: Information and counselling—
	'After section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (Medical termination of pregnancy) insert—
	"1A (1) If tests of a foetus reveal that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, a registered medical practitioner or a suitably qualified health professional expeditiously shall provide the pregnant woman with—
	(a) current, scientific information in a written form concerning:
	(i) the life expectancy of;
	(ii) the expected intellectual and functional development of; and
	(iii) the treatment options for;
	a foetus diagnosed with, or a child born with, the physical or mental abnormalities identified as a risk by those tests,
	(b) contact details for, where available, supportive service providers, including telephone help lines specific to the physical or mental abnormalities identified as a risk by those tests, and
	(c) the offer of a suitable opportunity to receive relevant counselling and such other information as they deem proper.
	(2) If, subsequent to the receipt of test results referred to under subsection (1), the pregnant woman notifies a registered medical practitioner that she is considering terminating the pregnancy, either wholly or partly as a result of those test results, then the termination must not take place until the information and offer set out in subsections (1)(a) to (c) have been provided.'.
	New clause 9— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 7)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "twenty-second week".'.
	New clause 11— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 9)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 Abortion Act for "its twenty-fourth" week", substitute "23 weeks and 6 days".'.

Edward Leigh: Mr. Gale, it is an honour to open this debate. The only reason why new clause 1 is being considered first, and I am speaking to it, is that we wanted to give the Committee a chance to vote on all the new clauses in ascending numerical order at 10 o'clock; that, I think, is best and most convenient for the Committee.
	My new clause 1 will limit social abortions to those carried out before 12 weeks' gestation. In Europe, the most common position is for abortions to take place before 12 weeks. The new clause would not affect some 89 per cent. of abortions.
	The minds of most people in the Chamber will be made up. We each know where we stand, according to our conscience. We know when we think life begins, and whether we think it begins at conception or not. That is probably true of the so-called strongly pro-choice or pro-life people. For many of us, there are strong points of principle involved. Later in the debate, we will come on to the detail of the issue of when people think that an unborn child is viable. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I spend a few moments setting out the principles that motivate us.
	There is rightly much talk in the House about human rights and the rights of the vulnerable. In my personal view, there is just one, overwhelming, fundamental human right: the right to life. I must confess that my views have changed over the years. If I am to be honest with myself, I have to take an entirely consistent position. If a vote were to be held on capital punishment, I would vote against it. That is why I voted against all the recent wars, and why I am voting as I am on the Bill. I believe that one can take only a consistent position based on humanity, with all its faults and disabilities. That is where I stand; I do not know any other way. I hope that the House will forgive those of us who take that position.
	We sometimes feel that the ghosts of great parliamentarians are looking down on us in our great debates on the social issues of the day. The great-great-grandson of William Wilberforce said recently that he thought that if that great parliamentarian were here now, he would support us. Wilberforce fought against entrenched opposition, moneyed interests and a world view according to which some people were not fully human. We know that we are up against it tonight; we know that the pro-choice lobby dominates the establishment, and that we are talking about a multi-million-pound industry, but for all that, we feel that our voice has to be heard. It is not perhaps the voice of the leading members of the medical establishment, or the voice of the majority in the House of Commons, but it is the voice of many people in our country, and the views expressed by that voice have to be put on record.
	We believe that an unborn child of 12 weeks has undeniable human characteristics. Her organs, muscles and nerves have begun to function. She has fingernails and toenails. To become a child, she needs nothing more than to stay for a few months in the safety of her mother's womb. We will all take different views. Some will not share our opinion, but undeniably the view is developing in this country that what I say is more and more true of unborn children of 16, 18 or 20 weeks. We must accept that in this instance we are dealing with a human life. If we cannot deny the humanity of babies at 12 weeks, we cannot deny our duty to protect them.
	Those are our views, and I set them out at the beginning of the debate, but I know that many people will not accept them. However, I think that they will accept that public opinion is changing in this country. That is why I tabled the new clause. The public are beginning to realise that we are out of step with many other countries. That is partly because, as a result of advances in modern medical science, we know so much more about what goes on in the womb.
	Only this week, I read a moving article by Vincent Argent, the former medical director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. He is not a religious person. He has carried out many abortions, and he is presumably pro-choice. He was critical of the euphemistic way we talk of foetuses when we discuss abortions, whereas when we refer to IVF we talk of babies. He said:
	"Most people do not realise just how distressing late abortions can be. The procedure remains the last taboo. While heart and brain surgery are regularly shown on television, the reality of a late abortion has never been seen on British screens...It is hard to describe how it feels to pull out parts of a baby, to see arms, and bits of leg, and finally the head."
	I know that it is distressing to read that; I do not want to cause distress, but we have to accept that there is a double standard. We are so careful about the life of a baby when it is wanted, and so concerned about the mother's health, but we are dismissive of the rights of an unborn child when it is not wanted. Of course we would like every child to be a wanted child, and of course we appreciate the enormous pressures on women, and the difficulties that they face. However, an unwanted foetus can become a wanted child, but a dead foetus can never become a living one. That is our position.

Edward Leigh: That is the hon. Lady's view. I think that everybody knows where I stand, and many people in the Chamber will have religious convictions. As we know, the fact is that politics is about practical realities.
	The practical reality is that in this country we have a 24-week abortion limit, which is one of the highest in Europe. As public opinion changes, we as parliamentarians are entitled to give the House a chance to vote on various options to reduce it, from 12 weeks to 22 weeks. That is all we are doing. We know that whatever our personal views, religious or otherwise—many people who believe strongly in abortion are not religious—we know that abortion on demand up to 10 or 12 weeks is the reality in every country in Europe, apart from Ireland and Malta. It is not a question of chipping away; we are giving the House the opportunity to vote.
	There are double standards about the unborn child. Whatever one's views on abortions—I understand the strongly held views of many people who feel that they have to defend the rights of women to make a choice about something in their own body—surely everyone in the Chamber feels depressed about what is going on in Europe. It presents a bleak picture of our country that we have one of the highest abortion rates in Europe—200,000 a year. In modern Britain, the most dangerous place to be is in one's mother's womb, which should be a place of sanctity. Ninety-eight per cent. of abortions are social. Only 1.3 per cent. are because of foetal handicap and 0.4 per cent. are because of the risk to the mother's life. It is a bleak picture of modern Britain.
	We read in our newspapers this week that some women have multiple abortions—4,000 women have had four abortions, and scores have had eight. Is that the sort of Britain to be proud of? I know that I will not get the support of many people when I say this, but fewer abortions will mean fewer women suffering. It is pro-women to take the position that we take. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recently issued a statement about the mental and physical damage to women's health caused by abortions.
	That is our principled stand. We have set it out, knowing that it is not shared by everybody, but it is the view of many of our fellow countrymen and country ladies, and that view must be put forward.
	Why do I speak of 12 weeks? I know many hon. Members will be doubtful about voting for the motion. They will say that it represents an extreme point of view, but is it so extreme? The limit of 10 to 12 weeks applies in France, Portugal, Slovenia—although in Slovenia there is appeal to a committee—Austria, Belgium. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia and Spain. In Romania the limit is 14 weeks, and in Sweden 18 weeks.
	The 24-week limit applies only in the United Kingdom, Holland, Latvia, Lithuania and Cyprus. Do we want to be up there in that league? Germany, Austria and France are great countries with wonderful Parliaments and democracies. They debate these matters and, after mature debate, they have all taken the view that a limit of 10 or 12 weeks is about right.

Edward Leigh: I hope that if we still believe strongly in the right of the people of Northern Ireland to have control of their own affairs, we will let them make that decision in the way that most of their leading political parties want to make it.
	Given what is happening in the rest of Europe, it is not surprising that public opinion is changing. A recent ComRes poll showed that 58 per cent. of the people, including three out of four women, think that abortion should be limited to 20 weeks or less, and 41 per cent. of women think that the abortion limit should be lowered to 12 weeks or less, so ours is not an extreme view. I know that opinion polls are not conclusive and one can throw doubt on a particular poll, but I am sure everybody will accept that there is a genuine change in public opinion and we should reflect that in this House.
	Forty years ago the House was asked by a Member: "Would the sponsors of the Bill think it right to kill a baby they can see? Of course they would not. Why then do they think it right to kill one they cannot see?" Since 1990, despite what we were promised way back in 1966 and 1967, we have effectively had abortion on demand, certainly up to 18 or 20 weeks and, under the law, up to 24 weeks. But since 1990 we have learned so much more about what goes on in the womb. We can see babies walking and sucking their thumbs. I have seen that in my own six children.
	Forty years ago, another right hon. Member made this telling statement: "When a decision about abortion is taken, the mother can speak, the doctor can speak, the father may well speak, but what can the child in the womb say? The child cannot speak. She cannot say, 'I want to live.'" I believe that we should give that silent child a voice.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I shall speak to new clauses 7 and 1, and other clauses relating to a reduction in the limit beyond which an abortion may not take place. I share the views of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I am sorry that we do not all have the same view on this issue.
	In 2006, 193,000 women in this country had abortions. Under new clause 7, the next 200,000 women who will probably elect to have an abortion next year would have the right to appropriate support and information before making a final decision. Obtaining an abortion is incredibly easy. I know that at first hand, having recently accompanied my friend to an NHS-sponsored clinic. Consultations at the hairdresser's have taken longer than the time it took to make a decision to have an abortion.
	For the record, and contrary to many of the statements that I have read this week which purport to know my views, I am not opposed to abortion. I believe that women should have the right to choose; I just hope that they do not choose to have an abortion. I hope that all of us here are working to create an environment in which economic and social abortions are unnecessary, and that babies who are disabled or who are not considered acceptable because they may be handicapped in one way or another are no longer considered to be such a burden on society that we must get rid of them at all costs.
	I would very much like it if we could change the rules and regulations so that the same rules applied to babies in the womb who have a disability as to those who do not. I do not understand why we continue to discriminate against them. For me, all individuals are born equal, irrespective of the disabilities they manifest. That is irrelevant. We are all of the same value.
	Having an abortion is a very serious undertaking, and women who have had one rarely ever mention it again. I suppose that for many it is something that they would prefer to forget, but even for them, echoes of that day will live with them for ever. Some will come to bitterly regret their decision. Some women will invariably develop depressive anxiety or other mental health disorders as a direct result of a five-minute decision.
	The new clause seeks to ensure that women presenting themselves for an abortion are given the sort of information that women should have had since the introduction of the law. I am arguing that at least five days before a woman finally makes any decision to have an abortion, a doctor should be required to offer her counselling and the details of the embryonic and foetal development of her baby at two-weekly intervals. She should also have information about the physical, psychological and psychiatric risks associated with the termination of pregnancy, including a description of the methods of termination of different types of pregnancies and any risks associated with those methods. Finally, the woman should have a right to know about adoption services and other sources of help and advice, including information on any disability or abnormality from which the pregnant woman's embryo or foetus is at risk of suffering if born.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I hear from a sedentary position that that is not true, but a baby who was born at 22 weeks and six days is alive today. I do not know where science will take us; I am told that we can expect improvements in the care given to children in neonatal units. I hope so, but I do not believe that it is wrong to curtail the time available for a women to decide whether she is going to have an abortion.
	All the information that a woman needs about whether a baby has a physical or learning difficulty is available to her long before the 24-week cut-off date. I speak as a woman who has undergone those procedures, and I have two children with severe learning difficulties.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is sitting there, and I concur with his views.  [ Interruption. ] Well, there is dissent, whether we like it or not. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has said that some babies born at 23 weeks are viable. Of the 193,000 abortions that we had last year—the late stage abortions, which have to be lethally injected in vitro before they are delivered—many might have been viable, although I accept that the number itself would be small. I cannot stand here and say that it is all right to take those lives; I cannot do that. I would be much happier with 12 weeks—that is where I stand. Let women have the choice, but make it at 12 weeks.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: In the article referred to by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, the eminent doctor stated that no person seeking IVF treatment going for their first scan is told, "Oh, I can see your foetus." What is said is, "I can see your baby, and here is his feet, here is his head and here is his spine, and it is all looking fine". It is very convenient to hide behind the word "foetus" and other non-descriptors, because it makes it far easier to bear an abortion. It makes it far easier for all concerned to deal with the termination of a baby, which can go on to be a child—a very happy and loved child. Other studies suggest that those mothers who first elected to have an abortion and then changed their minds would have bitterly regretted such a decision a few years down the line, because the experience of the child is a different reality to the spectre sometimes painted by individuals in a hospital who think that they know what is best for a mother.
	I want to bring my comments to an end. I understand that lots of Members want to contribute to the debate today. I do not think that it is wrong to argue for a woman to have more information and advice at the most critical time in her life. It is not wrong to argue for a few days of rest time to consider what will be a profound decision. I hope that the House will agree to support my new clause.

Mark Pritchard: I rise to discuss new clause 3, but I will support any reduction in the current term limit, from 20 weeks downwards.
	Abortion is a sensitive and complex issue. It is a subject best debated in moderate and respectful language, and I believe that it has been thus far in this debate. Members of all parties have strongly held views, as we have already heard. They are views that I respect, although I may disagree with some of them. I would like to put a question to the Committee today. Has the common practice of abortion moved away from the spirit of the original Abortion Act 1967, which was amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990?
	The 1967 Act makes it crystal clear that when the termination of the unborn takes place, it should be
	"to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or"
	if the pregnancy would put the mother's life at risk; or
	"if the child...would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.".
	I think that most hon. Members accept those reasons, as well as reasons of incest and rape. There is, however, increasing concern inside and outside this House that far too many abortions are being carried out for social, rather than medical, reasons. Is it right that Britain carries out 200,000 abortions a year—600 abortions a day—and 6,200 of those abortions between 16 and 20 weeks? Is it right that 4,000 women in 2006 had had four repeat abortions, that nearly 1,000 women had had more than five abortions, and that some have had up to eight abortions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has already pointed out? Is that what our predecessors in 1967 set out to achieve in the original Act? There have been 6.7 million abortions in the United Kingdom since 1967.
	Far too many babies are terminated in the second and third trimesters. For those in the third trimester, abortion can often mean a lethal injection to the heart, and then the carving and slicing of the unborn child's body parts, tearing limb from limb, cracking the infant's skull and discarding the baby's body parts into a blood-filled plastic bucket. I challenge the media, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough: let us see on prime-time network television a late-term abortion for everybody to see. It is in the public interest, with millions of pounds of taxpayers' money being spent on abortion every year. Let the people of this country decide what goes on, what they will pay for and what they will stand for. Let us have these investigative reporters, these brave journalists who speak about the public interest on the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 or independent and Sky television put on that programme and let the people of this country decide for themselves. Why are they afraid of it? Why are they shying away? Let us see some real broadcasting for the public good.

Mark Pritchard: I am always being told off, Mr. Gale, so I shall simply add that to the list.
	That picture and the one on my website is not a tissue blob or an unrecognisable collection of cells, but a living, small human being. Even some botched abortions between 16 and 20 weeks' gestation revealed the extent of their humanity. One study in the west midlands revealed that 14.7 per cent. of the abortions undertaken ended in a live birth. Indeed, babies born alive after failed abortions are increasingly common.
	An expert from the International Association for the Study of Pain wrote in volume XIV of the "Clinical Updates":
	"Our current understanding of development provides the anatomical structures, the physiological mechanisms and the functional evidence for pain perception developing in the second trimester."
	I believe that the unborn are fearfully and wonderfully made. Terminating a child that has been woven and knitted in the womb should be a choice of last resort, not the latest manifestation of Britain's throwaway society.

Mark Pritchard: Thank you, Mr. Gale. It was a long intervention, but it was worth while, because the hon. Gentleman has made some personal and valid points. My answer is that we can hopefully have both.
	I often wonder, given Britain's skills shortage, how many of the 200,000 aborted last year could have been the engineers and maths teachers that we need. Indeed—and not on a light note—how many could have been the English cricketers and football players that we need? A lot of talent has been lost.
	I hope that, given the cross-party support for new clause 3, we will have an opportunity to divide on the matter and to enter the same Lobby. I hope that the House will have a chance to express its view on foetal pain, sentience, the sanctity of life and public opinion.

Chris McCafferty: Because the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) made some political points, may I say at the outset how sad I am that the former hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody, cannot be here to speak in this debate? Gwyneth was a great champion of women's rights. I think that she would have been disappointed, as I am, that this debate is, with some very honourable exceptions, dividing on party political lines. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] It is true.
	It is clear from the last three speeches that abortion is an emotional topic. It provokes strong reactions in almost all societies and is clearly doing so in the House this evening. There seems to be an unspoken agreement that women should be patronised when they become pregnant and steered towards the expected outcome of carrying that pregnancy to term. People who are not directly involved with unwanted pregnancies dominate the public debate. Not surprisingly, they operate on wrong assumptions about how a pregnant woman should be treated and cared for.
	The first gross misconception is the assumption that restricting abortion or making it illegal would in some way be pro-life. The error in that argument is that the exclusive focus is on the foetus. The woman is totally ignored, as if she does not count. A clear example of the low value put on women's health by the anti-choice lobby is the recent Polish court case in which a woman was forced to become nearly blind as a direct result of being denied an abortion. That woman's sight had less value than upholding her pregnancy. I hope that hon. Members will not go down that route tonight, because that position implies that one can protect life by restricting access to abortion or making it illegal. However, there is no evidence at all that restricting abortion reduces the numbers.

Chris McCafferty: No, I will not give way. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] I will not give way—it is important to make this point. Those guidelines say:
	"Pregnant women should be offered an ultrasound scan to screen for structural anomalies, ideally between 18 and 20 weeks' gestation",
	which is medical speak for 21 weeks, with the emphasis on "ideally". We all routinely campaign for NICE guidelines to be implemented, do we not? I therefore have to assume that hon. Members also believe in those guidelines, or perhaps they are the exception.
	What has been proven to reduce abortions is comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to effective contraception and early safe abortion services. Opposition Members might not like it, but it is an established fact that Dutch women have the lowest abortion rates in the world, and that is because they have that access. Far from reducing the frequency of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, restricting abortion forces women to resort to illegal and mostly unsafe abortions, which endangers their health and their life. That is why virtually all developed countries legalised abortions in the previous century—because they could no longer accept the tragic suffering and loss of their female population.
	If women have no access to legal abortion, they resort to illegal means. Women will go to any lengths and will take any risk to end an unwanted pregnancy—and "any" means exactly that.

Chris McCafferty: No; I want to make some progress.
	Illegal abortion is extremely risky. It is usually performed late and is frequently performed by an untrained person. Besides the medical risks, abortions performed under illegal conditions are socially unjust, because women with means can and will pay for safe abortions, leaving poor women at the mercy of illegal settings and the high risk that they bring.
	Another fundamental misconception in the abortion debate is that society needs to intervene to ensure that pregnant women make the right decision. All restrictions in reproductive health imply that pregnant women must be protected from themselves, so that they do not make a hasty decision against having a child—we have heard about that this evening. Total strangers declare themselves advocates of a pregnant woman's foetus. Such a position not only violates the fundamental rights of women but is an incredible insult to women, being based on an arrogant and unthinking assumption that women in general are inferior to men.

Chris McCafferty: I do not recall having said that. What I am saying is that putting restrictions in the way of women who have already made a difficult and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) said, traumatic decision—she used that word about three times—is just prolonging the agony. Doing so is cruel and unnecessary. There are increased costs to society, but no benefits.
	Mr. Gale— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Hon. Members: "Sir Michael!"]—I mean Sir Michael; I am not sure how to address you in this debate. Society has shown impressive creativity in the past, in introducing all sorts of ingenious restrictions on access to abortion, none of which have shown any evidence-based benefit to the people involved. In most countries, and indeed here, the legal framework and the requirements for an abortion do not reflect the needs of women with an unwanted pregnancy; rather, they reflect the personal morality and the misconceptions of people who are both professionally inexperienced and personally not involved. Why is it so difficult to do the most obvious thing—give the power to decide to those who are most directly involved? Women carry a completely disproportionate share of the burden in reproduction, but where are their rights? And tonight we are talking about taking them away.
	I say to the male Members of this House—they are in the considerable majority—that I recognise that they cannot get pregnant, let alone have an abortion themselves. I suspect that most of them are profoundly relieved that that is the case. Most women would believe that we would not be here having this debate if men could do that, but it is in men's own interests to maintain the reproductive health of women, because most are directly affected by and dependent on it. They should, therefore, be arguing not to restrict women's rights to choose, but for conditions that permit women to end an unwanted pregnancy, if necessary, in the best way possible for them and without unnecessary suffering. As we heard earlier, termination of a wanted pregnancy must be one of the very hardest decisions that women and couples have to make. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, it is traumatic.
	The NICE guidelines, which I mentioned earlier, are very clear. Those new guidelines say that pregnant women should ideally—I stress that word—be offered an ultrasound scan at between 18 weeks and 20 weeks and six days' gestation, which is 21 weeks. As I said, Members in all parts of the House always campaign for NICE guidelines, and I have to assume that that one is not an exception. I also say to Members that unless they do not accept the NICE guidance in this particular case, it would be wholly inconsistent for them to vote to lower the upper limit to 22 weeks or even less, because they would clearly be removing any element of choice from the process. Any reduction below the current 24-week limit would leave little or no room for women and couples to make a responsible, considered choice when a potentially serious abnormality is detected.
	Of course, I agree that legislation should always adapt to take account of scientific and technical progress, but all the recent independent peer-reviewed research has shown very clearly that survival at below 24 weeks' gestation has not improved, despite advances in other aspects of antenatal care and the care of premature babies. When the 24-week limit was approved by Parliament in 1990, a key argument was that that was the stage at which the foetus was considered viable. It is the considered view of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Association of Perinatal Medicine that there is no evidence of a significant improvement in the survival of extremely premature babies below 24 weeks' gestation in the UK within the last 18 years. The recent EPICure and Trent studies that were referred to earlier also say the same thing. There is no significant statistical improvement in survival under 24 weeks.
	I have said many times in this Chamber—I will keep on saying it until Members start to listen—that the best way of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions is to improve women's access to contraception, as well as educating women and men about sexual health, and to make sexual health and relationship education compulsory in all our schools. In contrast, any reduction in the upper time limit would force a very small number of vulnerable women to continue a pregnancy against their will. Proposals to reduce the time limit do not even take into consideration the terrible plight of women who have a wanted pregnancy but discover a foetal abnormality at a later stage.
	I, too, want to see a reduction in the number of women seeking abortion—I imagine that all Members in all parts of the Committee do—and a reduction in the gestation period at which abortions take place, but late-term abortions are very rare. In 2006, less than 1.5 per cent. of all abortions took place after 20 weeks, and of those, a mere 0.7 per cent.—a tiny fraction—were carried out at 22 weeks or later.
	I say to Members that they should vote for 22 weeks or less if they really are anti-choice. They should vote for 22 weeks or less if they really believe that a woman should be required to continue a late-diagnosed pregnancy even if her health is at risk or the foetus is abnormal. They should vote for 22 weeks or less if they do not believe that such difficult decisions should, wherever possible, be made within the family. For the purposes of giving the Committee an opportunity to vote positively on 24 weeks—23 weeks and six days is the medical definition of 24 weeks, the status quo—I say to Members that they should support the status quo if they are pro-life, pro-quality of life or pro a woman's life. They should support the status quo if they are pro women's rights—after all, women's rights are human rights. They should support the status quo if they are pro reproductive rights, because reproductive rights are also human rights. They should support the status quo if they are pro-humanity, because any reduction of the upper limit would be cynical, cruel, ill-informed and inhumane.

Michael Penning: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It appears that we may have 10 sittings on the Bill on the Committee Corridor. We are where we are: the amendments have been made, and we have got three hours. With that in mind, I will not take a huge number of interventions. Other hon. Members have been very generous in giving way, but I am conscious of those Members who wish to contribute.
	Since 1968—I apologise if I am using figures that have been used earlier, although I do not think they have been—5.5 million pregnancies in this country have been terminated. As we heard earlier, the latest available figures show that nearly 200,000 were terminated in 2006. The figure has risen dramatically since 1969, when 5.2 women in 1,000 had an abortion. The figure is now 18.3 per 1,000, which is a huge amount. I believe that everyone in the House would like to see a massive reduction in the number of abortions taking place in this country. This is not about choice; I want everybody to have a choice, but surely, in a compassionate society such as ours, we would all want to see fewer terminations taking place.

Michael Penning: I should like to make a little progress.
	I want to move on to the sheer quantity of abortions taking place in this country today, and to the fact that 32 per cent. of women who have an abortion have had an abortion before. I find that enormously disturbing, both as a father and as a husband. Earlier today, I was having a conversation with an old friend who has daughters of a similar age to my own. My daughters are 17 and 19 years old. This gentleman is not a politician, and he asked me how I was going to vote this evening. He told me that, the other evening, he had had a disturbing conversation with his 19-year-old daughter, who had been on Facebook, having a conversation with one of her friends from college. Her friend is already a single mother, and she told my friend's daughter that she was now pregnant again. My friend's daughter said to her, "This is really serious. What are you going to do?" Her friend replied that she was going to have an abortion. When my friend's daughter observed that this was a very serious matter, her friend replied that she had had two abortions already. I accept that that is not the norm, but it illustrates the failure of this country to address that problem.
	I am not in any way taking a view on that person's individual circumstances. I am not there; I am not her father—I do not know whether she has a father. We do know, however, that it is not good for her to be in that position, and we must do everything that we possibly can—

Michael Penning: Thank you, Sir Michael. As this is such an important debate, I would have thought any meetings that needed to take place could take place outside the Chamber.
	Sex education is extremely important, but my own daughters tell me that, when they had sex education at school, it was useless. I served in the military at the age of 16, and when I meet servicemen and women around the country, they tell me that more sex education is being given to the troops of this country than there ever has been to pupils in school. If we are more proactive about giving sex education to the military than to those in our schools and colleges, there is something missing here.

Dawn Primarolo: This is a very important debate, even if I have expressed views outside the House and as an individual Member about what I think is the appropriate place for this discussion. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on his opening remarks. I do not agree with him, but he made clear what is going on in this evening's debate.
	There are those in the House who oppose abortion; there are those who oppose abortion, but who believe that in order to prevent it they should support a series of incremental reductions in what is currently available; and there are those who support abortion and seek to find a reference point or an anchor on which to decide the availability of abortions with reference to time limits and other criteria. Although I think it is very important for us to approach the issue from the position of our personal experiences as well, in my opinion it is dangerous to replace evidence by anecdotes and then move to general assertions about the best way to make informed decisions in this difficult debate.
	One issue repeatedly cropping up this evening is that of the evidence for a reduction in the upper gestational limit for abortions of 24 weeks. We have heard and will continue to hear arguments ranging from maintaining the 24-week upper limit to various reductions. The hon. Member for Gainsborough made it clear where he thought it should be on the basis of his personal choice rather than evidence.
	The upper gestational limit for termination of pregnancy under section 1(1)(a) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was set by Parliament at 24 weeks because the scientific evidence at the time was that the threshold of viability had increased and babies were increasingly surviving at 24 weeks and above. I make that point to make it clear that the upper gestational limit for abortions on ground (a) has always been linked to the potential viability of the foetus outside the womb .

Dawn Primarolo: Just one moment. That was the case in 1967; it was the case in 1990; and it is certainly the case now. I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who entered the House in the same year I did. In every debate on abortion, she has been clear that she is against it, just as I have been clear that I believe it is a woman's right to choose. I am happy to give way to her.

Dawn Primarolo: No, just a minute. I was making the point that nothing has changed over that time period. The difficult choices that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and others have identified existed in 1990 and they exist now. We all know that the circumstances in which women have abortions are not easy; the decision is difficult, there are many complex reasons, but up until this evening the House has chosen to place its judgment in the evidence. We have heard mention of that evidence from the EPICure studies and, most recently, from the Trent regional study, which continues to demonstrate that despite improvements in some neonatal units, there is no improvement in the survival rates of those very young babies.
	Reducing the current time limit would have a significant impact on a small number of women who seek late abortions. The Committee must face the fact that some of those women, if forced to give birth to unwanted children, will continue not to wish to do so. Having made that decision, they will travel abroad and seek abortions elsewhere. Would it not be appalling if we drove women back to where they were before the 1967 Act?

Dawn Primarolo: I have seen the results of that study, and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
	This is the challenge that is presented to the Committee. If life were always only about simple choices and clear-cut decisions it would be so much easier, but we are talking about complex lives. I am thinking particularly of very vulnerable young women, or older women who, for a number of reasons, may not have discovered their pregnancies. I am also thinking about foetal abnormality. Does the Committee really believe that it should remove consideration of those few but none the less vulnerable women as individuals without the support of evidence? Of course, for Members who are completely opposed to abortion the answer is yes, they would take those rights away, but I think that that would be a retrograde step.

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Sir Michael. Is it in order for a Member, even a Minister, to deeply misrepresent something said during the debate by a Member who is not here to correct what has been said?

Dawn Primarolo: Because the 1967 Act, as amended, provided for that, and I am making my comments only with regard to the legislation as it currently operates and whether or not there is any indication that there should be a change in the criteria.
	New clause 6 seeks to remove disability as a ground for abortion and to extend the excluded grounds to include gender, race and sexuality. If that ground is repealed, those women carrying a child with a serious handicap may be forced against their wishes to continue with the pregnancy. In some cases, that will increase the risk to the woman as well. We must remember that we are talking here about very serious handicaps, such as the absence of a large part of the brain. Is it right to force a woman to carry this child until it dies in the womb or is born with no chance of survival? That is the kind of very difficult question that we need to confront this evening.

Dawn Primarolo: With respect, I have given way quite a lot, and I need to conclude my points.
	I shall now turn to the measure preventing abortion on the grounds of gender, race or sexual orientation. That is unnecessary, as abortion on the grounds of gender alone is already illegal and it is not possible to determine the race or sexual orientation of a foetus.
	New clause 7 seeks to require doctors to provide set information to women and introduce a five-day waiting period. The fact is that every woman's circumstances and level of understanding are different, and the information and support provided should be impartial and tailored to the woman's individual needs. I think the Committee would agree that forcing a very young girl whose pregnancy is due to sexual abuse to receive information on the development of the foetus—which the doctor would be legally obliged to do if this amendment were accepted—would be very distressing and, to many of us, unacceptable. This new clause would also effectively introduce a five-day waiting period, which would affect over 98 per cent. of women, causing further delays and unwanted stress and anxiety.
	As has been mentioned, new clause 8 would require that information and counselling be available, but that is required now. The professional regulatory bodies lay down statutory guidance to health professionals on what information should be provided in order that the woman is properly informed.
	Tonight every Member present has to make a series of difficult and complex decisions on highly sensitive issues, and I recognise how challenging that is for all of us, including me. In reaching a decision, it seems to me that each Member must assess the evidence that has been presented and vote accordingly. However, in doing so, first, they must be satisfied that the scientific evidence has changed, and we have heard that the consensus regarding medical evidence has not changed—there is no new evidence. Any reduction in the time limit will have a greater impact on teenagers and the very vulnerable who do not recognise their pregnancy, giving them untold additional anxiety and challenges. The Committee has the right, of course, to do this, but in doing so it must ask itself, "Is there any real evidence for a change, or is it just that Members of the House are against abortion?"

John Pugh: I want to make it clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) did, that I stand here as a Liberal Democrat but not for the Liberal Democrats; I speak in a personal capacity. Although there is policy here, and although a former leader of the Liberals, Lord Steel, piloted the Abortion Act, the Committee will be aware that other prominent Liberals, such as Lord Alton, left the Liberal party over the Act. I personally believe that there is a Liberal case to be put for a review of current legislation. I should also point out that as a man, I necessarily speak on this issue with a degree of natural caution and reticence. I can have no clear idea at all what it is like to be pregnant.
	The most depressing thing that I read recently on this topic was in yesterday's edition of  The Guardian. The usually sound journalist, Jackie Ashley, after contrasting opposing views and the very different beliefs behind them, wrote:
	"There is no sensible conversation between the opposing views to be had."
	That is borne out by my own observation of the House so far in debating any abortion issue. Such debates are emotive; related ten-minute Bills, unusually, are voted down without consideration; slogans replace arguments; the absolute right to life is starkly set against the absolute right to choose; rhetorical assassination replaces reasoned arguments. It is to be regretted that in the run-up to this debate, personal remarks by Members about Members have served to disfigure and to some extent to inflame debate.
	Despite profound moral differences, there is some common ground: we all believe that the abortion rate in the UK is far too high; we would all prefer a world in which there was no abortion, nor demand for it; we all recognise that our laws are among the most permissive; and we all qualify the rights that we claim—even the Catholic Church sanctions therapeutic abortion, and even pro-choice charities object to some choices. Where we differ is over the grounds, and consequently the limits, of abortion. I argue that, irrespective of any religious view, the justification for abortion becomes enormously harder from the moment when the foetus becomes conscious or responsive to pain. I also argue that we cannot be completely certain when that moment occurs, but that a precautionary principle should apply, and, where consciousness may exist, we must act as though it does. Frankly, there is no basis for giving anything a right other than that it is conscious, and there is no more significant event in the life of any being than becoming conscious.
	I note, too, the long and undistinguished history of denying full consciousness, or degrees of sentience, to those whom we choose to exploit, whether it is animals, fellow primates—or slaves. I accept, however, that the area of foetal sentience is a grey one and that the Committee, sadly, does not want to build the law around it or to apply a precautionary principle. The issue for the Committee is independent viability.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has made the point that breaking the link between viability and abortion limits would leave legislators groping around for another criterion on which to base limits. He is fundamentally right on that point, although viability is not to be understood here in the ordinary sense. Most babies, and some adults, are not capable of surviving without massive intervention from parents or carers. They are not independently viable. My one-year-old grandchild is not independently viable. Viability here is used in the technical sense:
	"the capacity of the foetus to survive—even with assistance—outside the womb."
	Everyone agrees that such a definition self-evidently must cover different cases as medical technology improves, and need not be related—should not be related—to a fixed gestation period, which is why few rational people can object to a review of the law.
	Some people think that the dates should be changed, if some foetuses are viable at a given date, for example, 23 weeks—we are talking about a significant percentage in that regard. Some think that the dates should be changed if any foetuses are viable at a given date, and others, including, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, think that the dates should be changed if most or the gross average of foetuses are viable. People choose their own option, but anyone who thinks that the dates should be changed if, and only if, foetuses show themselves to be viable on average at a particular stage must also bear in mind the fact that the foetuses that nature delivers early—the research group that we have all been talking about—are most likely to have had clinically troubled pregnancies and individual problems, which is not the case with aborted babies or babies in general at that stage.

John Pugh: I have discussed clinically troubled pregnancies, and I presume that that covers the maternal factor. I see no reason why the Committee must use the same definition as clinicians.
	The moral reality is that someone who aborts a baby at 22 weeks, might be—they cannot know that this is not the case—aborting a baby or foetus that is viable within the narrow meaning of the legislation, which is indisputably the case, and in any other sense. There are people in our world who are in no way inferior to us in capacity, intelligence and beauty, despite being born at 22 weeks. That is a fact, and it ought to give us cause for reflection.
	Quantitatively, as the EPICure 2 study shows—the Minister and I saw the draft findings last week—there is a statistically significant increase in the survival rate of premature babies at 24 weeks and an increase, although not a statistically significant one, in respect of 23 weeks. We need to explore further exactly why that is happening. It is false to say that no new evidence is available. EPICure 2 differs markedly from the Trent study; it is more widely based and it shows something different. I freely admit that the EPICure 2 study does not show a decrease in the level of disabilities that, sadly, premature babies endure. However, morality in this case is not a numbers game; the exact percentage surviving is not the big issue. One cannot easily argue on Monday that the percentage mix of a human-animal embryo is of no decisive moral significance, and then on Tuesday argue that percentages matter.
	May I conclude by addressing three counter-arguments? I sense—this came across in what the Minister said—that many who are opposed to even modest reform feel obliged to hold an imaginary line; they feel that if they concede 23 weeks or 22 weeks, who knows where the case for abortion may go. The Minister said that we could be right back at the pre-1967 situation. Again, that is the mirror image of the slippery slope argument that we had yesterday: if we allow pointless experiments to be carried out on hybrid embryos up until 14 days, some scientists will make progress in creating human-animal embryos. As in yesterday's case, all one can say is that the law says what the law says. It clearly does not follow from the fact that the law forbids something at 25 weeks that it is bound to forbid it at 23, 22 or 20 weeks. If it forbids something at 22 weeks, it might still allow it to happen at 20 weeks.
	Another argument was made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), and I take it very seriously. She argued that many, but by no means all, late abortions are special cases; I believe that she mentioned under-age girls, menopausal women and foetuses with late-detected abnormalities. I think that the statistics show that 40 per cent. of such cases result, in a sense, from late choices. That is what is odd about them; they involve people who made a late choice to have an abortion.

Judy Mallaber: I want to make progress, because I am conscious that a number of hon. Members want to speak, including my hon. Friend, and that I would be depriving them of time. He might get in, if he does not intervene now.
	As has been noted, some hon. Members are talking not only about the 16-week limit that I discussed earlier but about what is said to be a more modest reduction to 20 or 22 weeks. There has been a lot of debate, which I will not repeat, about how all the medical and scientific organisations concerned with the issue and the Science and Technology Committee accept that there has not been a substantial change in the viability limit.
	Earlier today, I listened to the initial results from the second EPICure study—we have already had the Trent study and the first EPICure study—and it is probable that we have reached the limit of possible technical advance. That limit is due to how the foetus develops, and the lack of brain and lung capacity in the period just before 24 weeks.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister spoke earlier about what happened in 1990, when we moved from 28 to 24 weeks. That change was seen as an attempt to keep the time limit for abortions consistent with what was then regarded as the scientific viability level. That is where the science leads us at present. Of course, I do not deny that it is possible to break that link, even though to do so would go against what all the medical and scientific organisations—doctors and others—are urging. However, a reduction to 20 or 22 weeks would not reduce the number of abortions. Those who want to use a reduction in the limit to that end will not achieve a substantial cut in the number of abortions, but if they get their way, they will bring misery to a small number of women who, as has been noted, are often among the most vulnerable.
	A point that has not been made so far in the debate is that, perversely, a reduction in the time limit could lead to an increase in abortions. The problem of foetal abnormalities needs to be considered and, no matter what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) may claim, my understanding of what the scientists say is that it will not be possible to get tests for all foetal abnormalities at an earlier stage. I am not a scientist, but that is what I understand.
	As a result, women who do not learn about abnormalities in the foetus until a late stage and only realise then that they may need an abortion—or who may have presented late, or who did not know that they were pregnant, and so on—may be panicked into getting an abortion when, if they had had a few more weeks to consider, they might have taken the pregnancy to term. If the limit is reduced to a point that is too early—that is, to only just after the time when the possibility of an abortion has been discussed—the perverse effect may be that women end up having more abortions, because it is something that needs time for consideration.
	I was at a briefing with the British Medical Association earlier today. We heard from the charity Antenatal Results and Choices, which helps support women whose foetuses have abnormalities. As has been discussed already, current legislation means that it should still be possible for such women to have an abortion at any time, regardless of the limit. The charity said that the 24-week limit is the line in the sand for many doctors, and I do not dispute their right to take that view, but women who are not diagnosed until late may not get the further tests that a final diagnosis requires. As a result, because they fear that they might lose the chance, they may be panicked into having an abortion that they might not otherwise have.
	There has been some discussion about the sort of women who end up having late abortions. Here is one example:
	"I was 19, my father had died and I was looking after my 8 siblings with my mother who could barely afford to keep us. I couldn't face telling my mum about my pregnancy—things were so difficult. If I couldn't have an abortion I'd have killed myself. Now I've been able to go to college, learn to read and write, play a full role in society and bring up a family of my own."
	Another women says:
	"I had been taking the pill. When I had a missed period, I went straight to my doctor for a pregnancy test. It came back negative. I was still missing periods. I returned to my doctor who said I had nothing to worry about. A short while later I met someone who had had a child after finding out too late that she was pregnant to have an abortion. I did another test, which came back positive. It took a further two and half weeks before I could have an abortion. It was the right thing for me—I have never regretted it."
	Those are two examples of late abortions that would be ruled out by those people who feel, "Yes, going from 16 weeks to 12 weeks is too far for me, but a moderate reduction would not have a terrible effect." It would; it would cause misery for a small number of women.

Judy Mallaber: No, I will not give way, because we have very little time left and a number of hon. Members still wish to speak, including those who take a different view from mine, and I respect their ability to express their views.  [ Interruption. ] If I let in an hon. Member because she is regarded as supporting my views, I would be criticised for not letting in others who take a different view. So I shall come to a conclusion.
	I dread the idea that we might go backwards, and I dread the idea that we might force women against their moral views and against what they feel is right for them into a position where they are forced to go through pregnancy and to bear a child in a situation in which they might feel desperate. Of course, we all want to cut the number of abortions, and we want to do so through better advice, better contraception and all the things that we can do to prevent abortions, but there will be circumstances in which women feel the need to go through that, and I appeal to the Committee not to make it difficult for them and not to put them into the terrible position of having to make that choice and of having to go through unwanted pregnancy, birth and the terrible decision of whether or not to keep the child that they have borne unwillingly.

Nadine Dorries: First, I am very aware of the difference between potassium chloride and vitamin K, and I have never written the words "vitamin K" on my blog. I defy anyone to go, right now, and find that. It does not exist.
	Secondly, there is a big difference between a wanted birth which dies in utero and an aborted birth. The RCOG produced the guidelines for abortion. There has been much discussion this evening about whether women have rights. Of course they do. However, in a pregnancy there comes a point when a baby may have a chance of viability. I shall go on to some evidential figures on viability.
	We have heard much of the EPICure 2 study and the Trent study. Professor Field, who is the author of the Trent study, said on the "Today" programme this morning that he is not sure that we should be using viability as a marker, and neither am I.

Nadine Dorries: We are running out of doctors who want to perform late terminations because the majority of doctors who work in the BPAS and Marie Stopes clinics are coming in from abroad on six-month contracts. There are very few UK graduates performing late terminations in BPAS or Marie Stopes clinics — [ Interruption. ] There are only two, apparently.
	Public opinion has changed, which has a huge amount to do with the work of Professor Stuart Campbell in 3D imagery. Pregnant women have always wished that they had a window on their stomachs so that they could see what their baby looked like and what their baby was doing. Professor Campbell has provided that window. We can now see what a baby looks like at various stages of pregnancy. We can see it walk in the womb, we can see it suck its thumb, and we can see exactly what our baby looks like.
	The public have been informed by the images of how a foetus develops, the knowledge that foetuses feel pain in the uterus earlier, the knowledge of what happens in a late termination, the fact that doctors do not want to perform abortions and the fact that they are not performed in the NHS but in private clinics, and they have taken a view. Their view is that they do not want any further late terminations at 24 weeks. The public do not say that they want the limit to come down from 24 weeks; the public—including three quarters of women—say that they want 20 weeks. They specify what they want.
	I would like to press the new clause to a vote, but I would like to finish with the words of Professor Sunny Anand, who is the world's leading authority on foetal pain. As a result of his work, neonates who are operated on now live. The consensus of opinion before was that neonates could not feel pain before they were due to be born. They were operated on and died during the operations. As a result of his research, neonates now live.

David Burrowes: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Yesterday, the assertion was made in the discussion about saviour siblings, not least by the Minister, that she would move heaven and earth to ensure that a very sick child lived. How does my hon. Friend square that with the position today, whereby the Minister would not ensure that very sick children who are the victims of a late abortion lived by reducing the time limit?

Nadine Dorries: The Minister may have selective preferences about which lives she want to save.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Lady has asserted many things to be facts that are not. She is entirely at liberty to make the points that she wishes to raise. However, nobody in the Chamber, least of all me, has made any assertions about people picking and choosing. Some of things that she is saying are not borne out by the evidence.

Nick Palmer: I want to speak about new clause 8, which is in my name and those of other Labour and Conservative Members.
	New clause 8 is the only amendment to focus on late abortion in the case of severe disability and I give notice that I hope to press it.
	Let me consider the other new clauses briefly. Given that there is no early term limit in cases of severe disability, I will not comment on the proposals to reduce the term limit, but I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on his persuasive and balanced views.
	Two new clauses cover information. The other is new clause 7, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who was here earlier, tabled. It may help the House if I explain the distinction between them. I think that my hon. Friend would agree that new clause 7 is intended to encourage women to think twice about abortion. New clause 8 would offer additional, strictly neutral information to help the woman at what may be the most difficult juncture in her life.

Crispin Blunt: As a parent who found himself in circumstances that could have been caught by new clause 8, I find it patronising, onerous and unnecessary. It would probably do more damage than good. What position does the hon. Gentleman think parents, who could be caught by new clause 8, are in? The Minister has made it clear that guidelines already cover it and I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause.

Nick Palmer: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I draw his attention to the contents of the proposed information. I shall go through them in detail.
	New clause 8 would essentially require neutral scientific information and counselling on a diagnosed condition to be offered to any woman considering an abortion. In practice, the effect would be that the Department of Health would need to provide a briefing pack on the conditions that the tests can disclose—Down's syndrome, club foot, cleft palate and so on—that also covered, for example, life expectancy, quality of life, availability of treatment and support groups. In response to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that any prospective parent in doubt about whether to have an abortion would surely wish to know those basic facts. They will want to ask, "What is the life expectancy if I go ahead? What kind of quality of life will the child have? What treatment is available and what support groups are there?"

Nick Palmer: I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's point. I stress that we are talking about the offer of information. Unlike some proposals that we have heard in the past, we are not saying, "We will not allow you an abortion unless you sit through this briefing that we insist on giving you." We are not saying, "You must go away and come back after a certain period." We are saying, "We have this information for you. If you would like to hear it and if you would like counselling, it is available." We would make it mandatory—not on the woman, but on the health service—that such information be available. If the woman and her partner felt that they had enough information already, they would be free to decline the offer without any delay.

Nick Palmer: Unlike some hon. Members, I am not able to give chapter and verse from individual conversations, but I have certainly spoken to constituents who have had abortions who said that they did not quite know the right questions to ask in that desperate situation. They asked what the implications of the condition were, but they were not spontaneously offered a detailed briefing of the kind that I propose. The hon. Gentleman may be underestimating the stress under which people are put and overestimating their ability to vocalise and communicate all the questions that they might have. There are many people who are a little scared of the health service and of the doctors to whom they talk. People are not universally as loquacious as the hon. Gentleman or as able to question energetically every doctor whom they meet. That is the difficulty. We need to be willing to provide the information without being pressed for it.
	I must declare a personal interest. I was born with a cleft palate, and my parents were advised by the surgeon that I could still have a decent quality of life so long as I did not make the mistake of choosing a career that involved public speaking.  [Laughter.] I do not claim that all advice is good. It sometimes seems as though we as a society place too much emphasis on physical perfection. Looking around the Chamber, I see that all hon. Members present are exceptionally good looking, but the sad truth is that none of us is perfect, however much we may look it. There are terrible foetal abnormalities that make the decision to have an abortion entirely understandable, but it is a great pity that potential parents, in a moment of acute distress, might be panicked into having an abortion when they could have had a happy child if they had been given more information.
	On most of the amendments to the Bill, hon. Members have generally separated into quite clear pro-choice and pro-life camps. My new clause has attracted the support of pro-life groups because they believe that if more information about the support that is available were provided, it is likely that fewer parents would opt for abortion. There is, however, nothing anti-choice about it. I tabled it as someone who has no religious belief, much as I would like to, and who is not part of any organised group on the subject. It is simply about ensuring that there is informed choice. I hope that many colleagues who have been agonising over these issues will find it a helpful way forward.

Richard Ottaway: I rise to speak to new clause 9, which seeks to lower to 22 weeks the threshold for terminations. Like my hon. Friend—she is my friend—the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), I agree with the principle of abortion. I believe that every child should be a wanted child, and I suspect that abortion is a terrifying experience involving trauma and stress for the woman involved. I also believe that even if one is against the principle of abortion, it should be the woman's right to choose.
	I invite the Committee to imagine a frightened young woman living in a bedsit somewhere on a housing estate in England who is pregnant, has no friends and has hostile parents. I believe that it is not for MPs to decide that she should be condemned to live with the consequences of that pregnancy for the rest of her life, or, indeed, that the child should be condemned as an unwanted child. To me, it is for the woman to decide whether or not to have a termination. The issue is the circumstances in which abortion takes place.
	I am the first to admit that the current law is far from perfect, but this is not a perfect world. With one exception, on balance, I do not favour either strengthening or liberalising the current law. That exception is the time limit for termination. I appreciate the briefings that have been given by the BMA, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Nursing, which conclude that there is no evidence of a significant improvement in the survival of pre-term infants at below 24 weeks' gestation in the past 18 years. I have no grounds on which to dispute that, and I accept their evidence, but in my judgment that is not the point. The question is whether 24 weeks is the right threshold.
	In 1990, the House reduced the threshold from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. If the report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is right and the situation is the same now as it was then, I am not sure that I would have supported 24 weeks then.
	In reaching the judgment, there are conflicting pressures. I believe that a woman should be given as much time as possible to deal with the huge economic and health pressures to decide whether she wants the child. However, I am concerned that abortions are being carried out after the date of viability.

Desmond Turner: Under the Act, the concept of 24 weeks is different from that of 24 medical weeks, as recorded in medical records and referred to in the various studies, including the Epicure study. The 24 weeks referred to in the medical studies are, in legal terms, 25 weeks, as the period can be anything from 24 weeks and 0 days to 24 weeks and six days. However, "24 weeks" in the Act refers to anything between 23 and 24 weeks. That is critical, because this is a critical time of development—

Julie Morgan: I speak in support of the present abortion time limit and to oppose all the amendments to reduce it. It is now 40 years since the Abortion Act came into effect in April 1968, and we have had 40 years in which women have rightly been able to decide what is right for them, in consultation with doctors, and in which abortion has been legal and safe. I have been pleased that we have been able to celebrate those 40 years on a cross-party basis, and that Sir David Steel, who introduced the original Bill, joined in those celebrations. He has made clear his support for retaining the 24-week limit.
	Despite some of the comments that have been made tonight and in the newspapers, which seemed to imply that women had abortions on a whim, the decision to have an abortion is not one that is taken lightly or that is easy to follow through. It is not easy to get an abortion; women in the UK do not get abortions on request; and the procedure has to be agreed by two doctors. Many people, including me, believe that abortion should be more accessible. There are no circumstances in which a woman wants to end up having to have an abortion, particularly if she is in an advanced state of pregnancy.
	It is very important to re-emphasise the number of abortions that take place late, as it is a minute number. About 89 per cent. take place in the first 13 weeks, as has already been said, and only a tiny number—1.45 per cent.—take place after 20 weeks. Clearly, it is extraordinary for late abortions to occur and it usually happens because of extraordinary sets of circumstances. For example, many women having late abortions have often not realised that they are pregnant or they may have gone into denial. It is quite common for women to deny that they are pregnant, ending up wanting a late abortion. Changes in personal circumstances may be relevant. Many Members have mentioned domestic abuse and changes in family circumstances.

Julie Morgan: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. A number of organisations have said very clearly that viability under 24 weeks is not improving. I am coming on to that point in a few moments. My argument now is that many of the different reasons why women present for late abortions are good and valid ones. Those reasons apply specifically to particular women. The decision to go ahead with an abortion should be made by that woman personally in tandem with her doctor on the basis of those particular issues.
	I attended the British Medical Association meeting this morning and talked to gynaecologists and others who are practising in the field. They told me that even a reduction of two weeks would have a significant effect on a very small number of vulnerable women. As has already been said, they needed time to talk to those women about the decision they had to make. It is so important not to reduce the opportunity for those vulnerable women to discuss those issues.
	There is a clear consensus from the medical community on survival rates. Many Members have mentioned that consensus, but some have failed to acknowledge it as they should.  [Interruption.] Certainly, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and other organisations have come out with a clear statement that there has been no improvement in viability under 24 weeks.

Ann Widdecombe: I cannot believe the way my hon. Friend has simply dismissed the humanity of the child. Because of the 24-week limit, that situation already arises. What limits the period to 24 weeks? The humanity of the child; the ability to feel pain, on which there is now a vast body of scientific evidence; the ability to feel distress. I ask again, why is it that we need to give a lethal injection to a child if it is not living in the womb? It may not be living outside the womb, but it is living in the womb. Those who believe in preserving life acknowledge the life of what is living, even though we cannot see it. If we could see the children that are being taken for abortion, there would be a national outcry.
	That is why Professor Campbell's pictures have had such an impact. Suddenly we can see what we are so wantonly—and I would say wickedly—destroying. Therefore, I commend any reduction, but especially that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I sincerely hope that tonight we will strike a blow for the weakest in our midst—those who have no other voice but ours.

Edward Leigh: I thank all Members who have taken part. This has been a fine, serious and good-natured debate in which Members have spoken with passion and conscience for what they believe in. The Committee must now divide. We all accept, of course, that women have rights. I hope, also, that we will ponder before we vote that unborn children have rights, too.

Willie Rennie: I suppose I am still the new boy in the House; last week, when Mr. Speaker offered me an Adjournment debate this evening, I readily agreed—not realising that we would be starting at 11.20 in the evening, but I am still grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue of military radioactive waste management.
	In April 2007, the  Dunfermline Press, my local newspaper reported a Ministry of Defence spokesman as saying:
	"The seven submarines stored currently at Rosyth Dockyard are very well maintained and monitored... They are in excellent condition and perfectly safe".
	Just one year later, that same newspaper's front-page headline screamed:
	"'Graveyard' fear as sub's hull is holed".
	It went on to describe the discovery of a fist-sized hole in the decommissioned nuclear submarine, HMS Revenge, one of the four SSBN—ship submersible ballistic nuclear— submarines currently stored at Rosyth dockyard in my constituency.
	With a certain amount of comedy, I would say, the MOD spokesman attempted to reassure readers that there was little to worry about, as it was microbial action and not rust that had caused the hole. Speaking as a simple Fifer, I regard holes as holes and I am not really worried about how they are caused; the point is that they are holes. I find it difficult to accept, however, that in just a year, the submarine has gone from being in "excellent condition" , well maintained and monitored to having a fist-sized hole in it. I find that rather strange and concerning.
	Rosyth dockyard has had a long association, stretching back to the '60s, with nuclear-powered submarines. In fact, Rosyth was involved at the very beginning of nuclear submarines, with HMS Dreadnought, Britain's first nuclear sub, which set sail from Rosyth for Singapore on a 30,000 mile sustained high-speed run a week before I was born in 1967. She had a major refit in the yard three years later. By 1984, the yard had developed an expertise in nuclear sub refits and was chosen as the sole location for refitting the fleet; two years later, extensive rebuilding commenced to facilitate its new role.
	In 1993, however, that decision was cruelly reversed. We all know about the decision taken when Devonport was awarded the refit and refuelling arrangements for the Trident submarine fleet and other submarines. That was an attempt by the Conservative Government—I notice that no Conservative Members are present—to save Conservative seats in the south-west. I am glad to say that they failed miserably, as the Conservatives were routed in the region by both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party.
	Rosyth dockyard continues to have a role as the resting place for seven nuclear submarines: the four Polaris SSBNs, HMS Resolution, HMS Repulse, HMS Renown and HMS Revenge, and three SSNs, or ship submersible nuclear submarines, HMS Churchill, HMS Swiftsure and the original HMS Dreadnought. In fact, HMS Dreadnought has been resting in the non-tidal basin of Rosyth for 25 years. Its fuel rods have been removed and it is waiting for its final resting place. The total weight of all the decommissioned submarines in Rosyth is almost 6,000 tonnes. These days, the basin is quite a tranquil and peaceful place, just along from the Qinetiq base in the Rosyth dockyard, and it is now also home to a pair of nesting cormorants.
	From the very beginning, Rosyth dockyard has had a close association with the nuclear submarine fleet, but I have to say that it is an association that, along with the disposal of the submarines themselves, we wish would come to an end.
	Dumping had been common practice in the 1950s and 1960s, and in the 1970s the Ministry of Defence planned to do the same with nuclear submarines after they were defuelled. Opposition to that method grew in the 1970s after worries were expressed about environmental risks, but only after an intervention by the National Union of Seamen in 1982 was the MOD stopped from dumping intermediate-level waste at sea. Opposition was also growing in the United States, which found an alternative solution for its nuclear submarines. Then, in the 1980s, the MOD agreed to store the submarines temporarily at Devonport and Rosyth.
	ISOLUS stands for "interim storage of laid-up submarines". The project defines its role thus:
	"Project ISOLUS is committed to the timely development and implementation of a solution for the dismantling of the UK's defuelled nuclear powered submarines which inspires public confidence, is safe, environmentally responsible, secure and cost-effective."
	The current process for nuclear submarines is described as defuel, de-equip, and lay-up preparation, or DDLP. Defuelling involves the most radioactive material on board the submarines. The fuel is removed and transported by train to Sellafield in Cumbria, where it is stored. De-equipping involves removing equipment that is classified for security reasons, or which can be reused or disposed of. Lay-up preparation involves the submarine, which still contains the nuclear reactor compartment—which is similar in size to two double-decker buses—being prepared for long-storage afloat. So far all that has been done at Devonport and Rosyth, but in future defuelling will only be carried out at Devonport.
	I want to explain why further delay in finding a final solution for the disposal of military nuclear waste is not an option, and why we need to be expeditious in seeking a programme to dismantle the 11 decommissioned nuclear submarines that we have in the United Kingdom. I know that more are coming onstream in the near future. The United Kingdom currently has 27 nuclear-powered submarines, of which 14 have left naval service and 11 have been defuelled. As I have said, seven are at Rosyth. The other four are at Devonport. The problem is that there is limited capacity for the storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines in the United Kingdom.
	An MOD spokesman told the  Dunfermline Press:
	"Our strategic capacity will run out by 2020 as more nuclear submarines are being decommissioned."
	However, I understand that the position is far more urgent, and that capacity will run out by 2011, in only three years' time. It may be possible to squeeze in a few more years and squeeze out a bit more space, but that will only delay the inevitable need for a decision in the near future. It is vital that we do not delay any more and for those capacity reasons we urgently need a solution for the decommissioned submarines.
	It is clear that the safe storage of nuclear waste is no longer a technical issue. There is no requirement for the various studies to be set deadlines that are decades into the future. As far as I know there are no technical barriers to progress, and we therefore need to make progress quickly. I see no reason why we cannot make a decision within two years, and start the process soon after that. The dismantling of the 11 submarines that are currently decommissioned at Rosyth and Devonport could begin in the very near future, which is something that my constituents would greatly welcome.
	The Americans have already dismantled 70 submarines, and have semi-buried the reactors in Hanford in Washington state. The French have also dismantled many of their submarines, using the same model as the United States and storing them at a high-tech facility in Cherbourg. Even the Russians, helped in part by the British Government, are dismantling their submarines. In fact, I received a letter from a Russian governor—which I think the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) also received—asking whether we would consider allowing the Russians to decommission our submarines. So the Russians are looking abroad for opportunities in what they regard as their expertise. It is my understanding that there is no technical reason why we have to wait any longer. I suggest that the only real reasons for further delay are purely political. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Politics has an important role to play, but it can present significant barriers. What the political process will allow us to do, however, is assess the pros and cons, so we can be open and transparent with the public about what the advantages and disadvantages would be. The second issue, therefore, is that technical barriers do not exist, so we should progress as soon as possible.
	The third reason is the reactor cool-down period. After decommissioning, it is normal to allow 18 months to enable the reactor to cool down, but the Ministry of Defence policy is to wait for a further 30 to 60 years as it believes it cannot reduce the volume, and therefore the risk, of intermediate-level waste in reactors. This would, perhaps, have the advantage of being timely for the new intermediate-level waste storage facility that the Government want to, but have so far failed to, provide. However, because of the nature of radioactivity in the reactors, it has recently been proposed that the reduction returns will not be as lucrative as first thought. So there now seems to be little advantage in waiting because of the cool-down reason.
	So far, I have cited three reasons why we need to act speedily to find a final resolution to the matter. The final issue is cost. Nuclear safety must always come first and before cost, but cost can become a consideration when a range of safe options are being pondered. It is certainly the case that the cost of storing the nuclear submarines afloat will continue to rise the longer they are in the water. I have already informed the House that a fist-sized hole has been discovered in the ballast tank of HMS Revenge. While I am confident the good people at Babcock will have the situation under control, I am also sure that the maintenance regime will be stepped up a notch to make sure that microbial action—not rust—does not create more holes in the nuclear submarines. That improved maintenance regime will cost more money, as does the ongoing storage at the invaluable facility of the Rosyth basin, which is increasingly being considered for commercial opportunities.
	What are the options? It is clear that we must dismantle the reactor compartments in the submarines. We cannot wait any longer. We cannot continue to store them afloat indefinitely at Devonport or Rosyth. The options for dismantling are clear: Devonport and/or Rosyth. Due to expense, security and nuclear standards, it may be possible to develop only one facility for that purpose. I am not in a position to judge whether Devonport or Rosyth would be the best location for that facility, but I would like to make a few observations.
	Devonport has the refit and refuel facility for the nuclear submarine fleet. It is a first-class facility that will be utilised for the Trident submarines, the Astute subs and the existing SSNs. That will operate well into the 2050s and beyond. Whereas Rosyth has a very good radioactive storage facility, it currently stores only low-level waste resin that requires chemical decontamination before it is sent to Drigg. It is also going through the process of decommissioning its nuclear facilities. With Trident, Astute and the rest of the fleet, Devonport's future is clearly with nuclear submarines, whereas Rosyth's is in ship refit, design, engineering services and supply chain services. With today's welcome announcement on the carriers, Rosyth is looking forward to its economic future. Indeed, it has a healthy future, well beyond that of the carriers
	It seems logical, however, that together with the refuelling and refitting should go the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear subs, but that does not mean that the reactors would necessarily be stored whole or in parts at Devonport. It does not have the space and is located within a large conurbation, so it is not an appropriate long-term location. Devonport, I would therefore suggest, is not the final storage location for the dismantled nuclear reactors, but it could be involved in the dismantling of the reactors in the interim phase.
	I know that the people of Plymouth want to dispose of their four—increasing to six, probably—decommissioned nuclear submarines as much as we in Rosyth want to dispose of ours, so we need a sensible, practical and cost-effective solution. If Devonport were chosen for such a dismantling facility, transporting the seven submarines down from Rosyth would be an issue. It would be logical to cut up the reactors and transport them by rail to Plymouth, but that would involve moving the waste under civilian regulations as opposed to military ones, the former being much more stringent and therefore expensive and restrictive. The Government should seek to change that. We should not be thwarted by artificial regulations in our attempt to seek a rational and effective system of final storage for the subs. If the regulations are not changed, the only practical method of transporting the subs to Plymouth would be by sea. My concern is that as the subs age, transporting them to Plymouth will not be possible without considerable expense, and the decision to develop a facility at Rosyth and Devonport will therefore be made by default.
	One of the key conclusions of an investigation by Project ISOLUS states:
	"Afloat storage should be regarded only as a stop-gap measure pending the development of an alternative strategy for interim storage".
	The Ministry of Defence has come under considerable criticism from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, which described it as having "no policy" on the future of decommissioned nuclear powered submarines. Such criticisms doubtless also echo around Devonport, as they do in Plymouth.
	We want a final solution for these nuclear submarines. Now, the Americans are also putting pressure on the MOD to come up with a solution. They are aware of the international attention on nuclear facilities and want the UK to come up with something sensible, along the lines that they themselves have adopted, as have the French and the Russians, as I have described.
	I hope that the Minister understands how important this issue is for Rosyth and for Plymouth. Both communities have lived and breathed the Royal Navy over the years. The Royal Navy has received our support, recruited our young men and women and benefited from our skilled work force. In return, our communities have accepted the consequences of the naval presence: high turnover of population, the sometimes rowdy behaviour, and the nuclear legacy. However, now is the time for the Ministry of Defence to recognise and live up to its obligations to our communities. We need an early decision on the future of our decommissioned nuclear submarines.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) on securing this debate on the management of military radioactive waste and on providing me with the opportunity to speak on this issue. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) is here. She takes a great interest in these issues, is one of the most hard-working constituency MPs in the House and is a great champion for Plymouth.
	I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman and begin by assuring him that the Ministry of Defence fully accepts its responsibilities regarding the need for effective management of the radioactive waste it produces. The production of such waste is an unavoidable outcome of the need to maintain vital military capability, and we are fully committed to managing it in a safe and secure manner, both now and in the future.
	I understand the concerns that many people have about radioactive waste. Some waste is clearly extremely hazardous if not handled appropriately, and the management of waste is a long-term commitment. We must face up to that commitment in a considered and robust manner and that is what we are doing, which is why we continue to invest the resources necessary to deliver practicable, sustainable solutions that will stand the test of time. Radioactive waste is produced from a range of military activities and is categorised in a range from very low-level waste to intermediate-level waste—that is the highest category that the Ministry of Defence holds.
	Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that the overwhelming proportion of defence radioactive waste is produced by the nuclear submarine and nuclear weapons programmes. There are also a number of other sources of waste, such as medical radioactive sources, depleted uranium ammunition and contaminated land. Our policies, processes and plans address the requirements for managing all categories of waste, whatever the source. The MOD is not alone in needing to manage radioactive waste and used fuel, and defence material is managed in a similar way to civil material. The MOD's current and future liabilities amount to less than 5 per cent. of the total UK waste inventory, by activity and by volume, so we play an active role in working with the UK nuclear industry, other Government Departments and regulators to deliver long-term waste management solutions for the UK as a whole.
	It is not in either the MOD's or the UK's interests to adopt solutions that diverge from those being developed by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which is why we are working closely with it to produce a coherent and optimal strategy to meet our waste management policy. The decommissioning and disposal of nuclear submarines, in particular the management of the radioactive waste generated by that process, is a key area of work for the MOD at this time.
	In July last year, the MOD signed a contract for the delivery of new facilities at Her Majesty's naval base Devonport for defuelling and de-equipping submarines in preparation for their afloat storage. That £153 million contract is scheduled to deliver in 2012, and will enable the removal of more than 99 per cent. of the radioactive material from submarines, in a way that meets the highest modern safety standards. That material will then be placed in medium-term storage to a standard that is at least as high as that for civil nuclear waste, and its storage will be subject to statutory safety regulation by the Health and Safety Executive. Low-level waste from operational submarines is disposed of at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority site near Drigg. The remaining radioactivity after defuelling is secured within the reactor compartments of submarines as they are maintained in afloat storage at Devonport and at Rosyth dockyard.
	The ISOLUS—interim storage of laid-up submarines—project was established by the MOD in 2000 to deliver a sustainable solution for the interim storage of nuclear submarines' intermediate-level radioactive waste over the next 60 years. That is a complex matter, whereby we must consider a range of factors including, as I have mentioned, the need to take account of broader UK policy. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management recommended in 2006 that a programme of robust, safe and secure long-term interim storage of intermediate-level waste was required. The ISOLUS project has taken the Committee's recommendations into account and, since its report was published, the project has been able to take forward technical and siting issues. The present intention is to store intermediate-level waste on land and to end the current practice of afloat storage. Detailed options for land storage are being considered in a technical options study that is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
	Radioactive waste is generated and stored at a number of locations around the UK. I would like to reassure the House that when it is necessary for material to be moved between the sites, safety and security remain paramount at all times. Indeed, safety and security are paramount across all aspects of the management of radioactive waste, and the MOD is committed to complying with national policies in this area. Defence activities, whether conducted directly by the MOD or by contractors, are subject to safety and environmental legislation, where it is applicable, and where such legislation does not apply to the MOD we introduce standards and management arrangements that are, so far as reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by legislation.
	The nuclear sector is, as one would expect, highly regulated. The bulk of the MOD's activities relating to radioactive waste management fall under the jurisdiction of statutory regulators—the HSE, including the nuclear installations inspectorate, the Environment Agency, in England, or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Where such activities are not subject to statutory regulation, the MOD regulator, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator, applies an equivalent regime, and in doing so works closely with the statutory regulators.
	I recognise that there is a great public interest in the MOD's management of radioactive waste and we are committed to a policy of openness and transparency so far as is possible, given the demands of national security. Through measures such as the publication on the internet last year of the MOD's radioactive waste disposal policy, we aim to demonstrate that the MOD is a responsible nuclear operator and owner. Project ISOLUS, for example, has already undertaken two major public consultation exercises and has established the ISOLUS advisory group, which has a broad membership and holds public meetings, to provide independent scrutiny of the project. We will continue to engage with interested parties throughout the decision-making process.
	I am pleased to have been able to respond to the hon. Gentleman on this important issue, and would like to reaffirm the MOD's commitment to maintaining the highest standards of safety and security, through the effective management of radioactive waste, both now and in the future.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to  Twelve o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 19 May 2008: In col. 70, in Division No. 191, delete Jim Dobbin from the Noes.